Long-Term Use of Muscle Relaxant Medications for Chronic Pain: A Systematic Review.

Importance: Stricter opioid prescribing guidelines have increased prescriptions of skeletal muscle relaxants (SMRs) for chronic pain, but the efficacy of long-term use of SMRs for chronic pain is unknown. Objective: To systematically review the effectiveness or efficacy of long-term use of SMRs for chronic pain. Evidence Review: Two reviewers systematically searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase (Ovid), Web of Science, CINAHL, and Cochrane through December 4, 2023. They included articles published in English, Spanish, or Italian. Only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and cohort studies with comparator groups evaluating at least 1-month duration of SMRs for chronic pain were included. The reviewers dually reviewed data abstraction, risk-of-bias, and quality. They characterized studies by chronic pain syndrome: low back pain, fibromyalgia, headaches, painful cramps or spasticity, and other syndromes. Findings: A total of 30 RCTs with 1314 participants and 14 cohort studies with 1168 participants assessed SMRs for chronic pain. Studies were primarily short-term (4-6 weeks). Nine unique SMRs were represented by the studies identified. Eleven studies (25%) examined baclofen, 8 (18%) examined tizanidine, and 7 (16%) examined cyclobenzaprine. Evidence for effectiveness was strongest for SMRs used for trigeminal neuralgia, neck pain, and painful cramps; evidence suggested SMRs for fibromyalgia, low back pain, and other syndromes were not more beneficial than placebo. The most common adverse effects were sedation and dry mouth. RCTs had a low to moderate risk of bias, and the quality of cohort studies was fair to good. Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review of long-term use of SMRs for chronic pain, findings suggest that their long-term use may benefit patients with painful spasms or cramps and neck pain; their long-term use for low back pain, fibromyalgia, and headaches did not appear to be beneficial. Clinicians should be vigilant for adverse effects and consider deprescribing if pain-related goals are not met.

Facilitation and Preferred Models for Delivering Substance Use Disorder Treatment in HIV Clinics: Results From a Multisite Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Integrated addiction treatment in HIV clinics is associated with improved outcomes, yet it is offered inconsistently and with variable models of care. We sought to evaluate the impact of Implementation Facilitation ("Facilitation") on clinician and staff preference for provision of addiction treatment in HIV clinics with on-site resources (all trained or designated on-site specialist) versus outside resources (outside specialist or refer out). METHODS: From July 2017 to July 2020, surveys assessed clinician and staff preferences for addiction treatment models during control (ie, baseline), intervention, evaluation, and maintenance phases in 4 HIV clinics in the Northeast United States. RESULTS: During the control phase, among 76 respondents (response rate, 58%), the proportions who preferred treatment with on-site resources for opioid use disorder (OUD), alcohol use disorder (AUD), and tobacco use disorder (TUD) were 63%, 55%, and 63%, respectively. Compared with control, there were no significant differences in preferred model during the intervention and evaluation phases except for AUD where there was an increased preference for treatment with on-site resources in the intervention versus control phase. Compared with control, during the maintenance phase, a higher proportion of clinicians and staff preferred providing addiction treatment with on-site resources versus outside resources: OUD, 75% (odds ratio [OR; 95% confidence interval {CI}], 1.79 [1.06-3.03]); AUD, 73% (OR [95% CI], 2.23 [1.36-3.65]), and TUD, 76% (OR [95% CI], 1.88 [1.11-3.18]). CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this study lend support for "Facilitation" as a strategy to enhance clinician and staff preference for integrated addiction treatment in HIV clinics with on-site resources.

Effect of Implementation Facilitation to Promote Adoption of Medications for Addiction Treatment in US HIV Clinics: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Medications for addiction treatment (MAT) are inconsistently offered in HIV clinics. Objective: To evaluate the impact of implementation facilitation (hereafter referred to as "facilitation"), a multicomponent implementation strategy, on increasing provision of MAT for opioid use disorder (MOUD), alcohol use disorder (MAUD), and tobacco use disorder (MTUD). Design, Setting, and Participants: Conducted from July 26, 2016, through July 25, 2020, the Working with HIV Clinics to adopt Addiction Treatment using Implementation Facilitation (WHAT-IF?) study used an unblinded, stepped wedge design to sequentially assign each of 4 HIV clinics in the northeastern US to cross over from control (ie, baseline practices) to facilitation (ie, intervention) and then evaluation and maintenance periods every 6 months. Participants were adult patients with opioid, alcohol, or tobacco use disorder. Data analysis was performed from August 2020 to September 2022. Interventions: Multicomponent facilitation. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes, assessed using electronic health record data, were provision of MAT among patients with opioid, alcohol, or tobacco use disorder during the evaluation (primary outcome) and maintenance periods compared with the control period. Results: Among 3647 patients, the mean (SD) age was 49 (12) years, 1814 (50%) were Black, 781 (22%) were Hispanic, and 1407 (39%) were female; 121 (3%) had opioid use disorder, 126 (3%) had alcohol use disorder, and 420 (12%) had tobacco use disorder. Compared with the control period, there was no increase in provision of MOUD with facilitation during the evaluation period (243 patients [27%; 95% CI, 22%-32%] vs 135 patients [28%; 95% CI, 22%-35%]; P = .59) or maintenance period (198 patients [29%; 95% CI, 22%-36%]; P = .48). The change in provision of MAUD from the control period to the evaluation period was not statistically significant (251 patients [8%; 95% CI, 5%-12%] vs 112 patients [13%; 95% CI, 8%-21%]; P = .11); however, the difference increased and became significant during the maintenance period (180 patients [17%; 95% CI, 12%-24%]; P = .009). There were significant increases in provision of MTUD with facilitation during both the evaluation (810 patients [33%; 95% CI, 30%-36%] vs 471 patients [40%; 95% CI, 36%-45%]; P = .005) and maintenance (643 patients [38%; 95% CI, 34%-41%]; P = .047) periods. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, facilitation led to increased provision of MTUD, delayed improvements in MAUD, and no improvements in MOUD in HIV clinics. Enhanced strategies, potentially including clinic and patient incentives, especially for MOUD, may be needed to further increase provision of MAT in HIV clinics. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02907944.

Patients' perspectives of medications for addiction treatment in HIV clinics: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: While substance use disorders (SUD) disproportionately impact people with HIV (PWH), HIV clinics inconsistently provide evidence-based medications for addiction treatment (MAT). Patient receptivity to MAT is critical to enhance addiction treatment in these settings. However, we know little from patients about how to best integrate MAT into HIV clinics. METHODS: This qualitative study used four focus groups informed by the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework to identify barriers and facilitators to receiving opioid, alcohol, and tobacco use disorder care in HIV clinics. The study population included 28 patients with HIV and SUD receiving care at one of four HIV clinics in the northeastern United States. Focus groups were recorded and transcribed for content analysis. The study also performed a brief survey assessing demographics and behaviors. RESULTS: Focus groups revealed several major themes related to MAT in HIV clinics. Barriers included stigma around MAT, knowledge deficits about available MAT options and the impact of substance use on PWH, concerns about medication side effects, substance use screening without adequate clinician follow-up, and peers who discouraged MAT. Facilitators included recognition of substance use as a threat to overall health, integrated care from HIV clinicians, and support for addiction treatment from peers with lived experience. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to enhance MAT in HIV clinics should include patient education to help them recognize addiction as a chronic disease with available medication treatment options; clinician and staff training to promote integrated, multidisciplinary screening and treatment; and thoughtful inclusion of peers with lived experience.

Readiness to Provide Medications for Addiction Treatment in HIV Clinics: A Multisite Mixed-Methods Formative Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: We sought to characterize readiness, barriers to, and facilitators of providing medications for addiction treatment (MAT) in HIV clinics. SETTING: Four HIV clinics in the northeastern United States. METHODS: Mixed-methods formative evaluation conducted June 2017-February 2019. Surveys assessed readiness [visual analog scale, less ready (0-<7) vs. more ready (≥7-10)]; evidence and context ratings for MAT provision; and preferred addiction treatment model. A subset (n = 37) participated in focus groups. RESULTS: Among 71 survey respondents (48% prescribers), the proportion more ready to provide addiction treatment medications varied across substances [tobacco (76%), opioid (61%), and alcohol (49%) treatment medications (P values < 0.05)]. Evidence subscale scores were higher for those more ready to provide tobacco [median (interquartile range) = 4.0 (4.0, 5.0) vs. 4.0 (3.0, 4.0), P = 0.008] treatment medications, but not significantly different for opioid [5.0 (4.0, 5.0) vs. 4.0 (4.0, 5.0), P = 0.11] and alcohol [4.0 (3.0, 5.0) vs. 4.0 (3.0, 4.0), P = 0.42] treatment medications. Median context subscale scores ranged from 3.3 to 4.0 and generally did not vary by readiness status (P values > 0.05). Most favored integrating MAT into HIV care but preferred models differed across substances. Barriers to MAT included identification of treatment-eligible patients, variable experiences with MAT and perceived medication complexity, perceived need for robust behavioral services, and inconsistent availability of on-site specialists. Facilitators included knowledge of adverse health consequences of opioid and tobacco use, local champions, focus on quality improvement, and multidisciplinary teamwork. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to implement MAT in HIV clinics should address both gaps in perspectives regarding the evidence for MAT and contextual factors and may require substance-specific models.

Pain symptomology, functional impact, and treatment of people with Neurofibromatosis type 1.

INTRODUCTION: Neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) is a neurogenetic disorder affecting 1 in 3000 people worldwide, where individuals are prone to develop benign and malignant tumors. In addition, many people with NF1 complain of pain that limits their daily functioning. Due to the complexity of the disorder, there are few options for treating pain symptoms besides surgery and medications. Moreover, the spectrum of pain symptomatology and treatment, as well as the mechanisms underlying NF1-associated pain, has been understudied. METHODOLOGY: To address this knowledge gap, we conducted a survey of 255 adults with NF1, leveraging the Washington University NF1 Patient Registry Initiative (NPRI) database. Demographic and pain data were collected using a Qualtrics survey. RESULTS: All participants had at least one surgical procedure, with 55% reporting having at least one surgery within the last year and 17% being currently prescribed opioid medication. A positive relationship was shown (p<0.001) between those prescribed prescription pain medication, and their pain severity and interference. Moreover, there was a significant relationship (p=0.049) between the usage of complementary treatments and pain severity and interference. CONCLUSION: The current study demonstrates that individuals with NF1 report a higher incidence of pain severity and interference than observed in NF1 previous studies, with pain symptoms not localized to any specific region of the body. The consideration for alternative treatments and careful monitoring of current treatments that are more conservative or have less potential adverse side effects may improve pain management and reduce the risk of developing medication dependence.