Drivers of the opioid crisis: An appraisal of financial conflicts of interest in clinical practice guideline panels at the peak of opioid prescribing.

BACKGROUND: Starting in the late 1990s, the pharmaceutical industry sought to increase prescribing of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain. Influencing the content of clinical practice guidelines may have been one strategy industry employed. In this study we assessed potential risk of bias from financial conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry in guidelines for opioid prescribing for chronic non-cancer pain published between 2007 and 2013, the peak of opioid prescribing. METHODS: We used the Guideline Panel Review (GPR) to appraise the guidelines included in the 2014 systematic review and critical appraisal by Nuckols et al. These were English language opioid prescribing guidelines for adults with chronic non-cancer pain published between July 2007 and July 2013, the peak of opioid prescribing. The GPR assigns red flags to items known to introduce potential bias from financial conflicts of interest. We operationalized the GPR by creating specific definitions for each red flag. Two reviewers independently evaluated each guideline. Disagreements were resolved with discussion. We also compared our score to the critical appraisal scores for overall quality from the study by Nuckols et al. RESULTS: We appraised 13 guidelines, which received 43 red flags in total. Guidelines had 3.3 red flags on average (out of a possible seven) with range from one to six. Four guidelines had missing information, so red flags may be higher than reported. The guidelines with the highest and second highest scores for overall quality in the 2014 critical appraisal by Nuckols et al. had five and three red flags, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our findings reveal that the guidelines for opioid prescribing chronic non-cancer pain from 2007 to 2013 were at risk of bias because of pervasive conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry and a paucity of mechanisms to address bias. Even highly-rated guidelines examined in a 2014 systematic review and critical appraisal had many red flags.

The opioid crisis: Origins, trends, policies, and the roles of pharmacists.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this review is to (1) provide information concerning the opioid crisis including origins, trends, and some important related laws/policies; and (2) summarize the current involvement and impact of pharmacists in helping to address the crisis, as well as examine practices in other healthcare disciplines from which pharmacists might derive guidance and strategies. SUMMARY: Contributors to the opioid crisis included campaigns to treat pain as a fifth vital sign and to use opioids in treatment of non-cancer-related pain, as well as aggressive marketing of opioid analgesics by pharmaceutical companies. To address the crisis, numerous strategies have been implemented at the policy/legislative, health-system, and patient levels, such as prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs), increased regulation of pain clinics, and expanded use of naloxone. Pharmacists have a critical role to play in interventions to address opioid misuse and reduce harm resulting from misuse. Such interventions include patient screening and risk stratification, patient and community education and outreach concerning appropriate pain management, medication reviews/medication therapy management, education on safe storage and disposal, distribution of naloxone/opioid rescue kits and training on their proper use, and referral of patients to addiction treatment, among other strategies. CONCLUSION: Pharmacists have multiple, complex roles in addressing the opioid crisis. Outcomes of several studies provide substantial evidence that pharmacists can make an impact through appropriate pain management, use of PDMPs, opioid overdose prevention training, and medication reviews and counseling, among other interventions.

Methodologic limitations of prescription opioid safety research and recommendations for improving the evidence base.

PURPOSE: The ongoing opioid epidemic has claimed more than a quarter million Americans' lives over the past 15 years. The epidemic began with an escalation of prescription opioid deaths and has now evolved to include secondary waves of illicit heroin and fentanyl deaths, while the deaths due to prescription opioid overdoses are still increasing. In response, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) moved to limit opioid prescribing with the release of opioid prescribing guidelines for chronic noncancer pain in March 2016. The guidelines represent a logical and timely federal response to this growing crisis. However, CDC acknowledged that the evidence base linking opioid prescribing to opioid use disorders and overdose was grades 3 and 4. METHODS: Motivated by the need to strengthen the evidence base, this review details limitations of the opioid safety studies cited in the CDC guidelines with a focus on methodological limitations related to internal and external validity. RESULTS: Internal validity concerns were related to poor confounding control, variable misclassification, selection bias, competing risks, and potential competing interventions. External validity concerns arose from the use of limited source populations, historical data (in a fast-changing epidemic), and issues with handling of cancer and acute pain patients' data. We provide a nonexhaustive list of 7 recommendations to address these limitations in future opioid safety studies. CONCLUSION: Strengthening the opioid safety evidence base will aid any future revisions of the CDC guidelines and enhance their prevention impact.