RESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Dolor Crónico , Trastornos Relacionados con Opioides , Analgésicos Opioides/efectos adversos , Dolor Crónico/tratamiento farmacológico , Dolor Crónico/epidemiología , Europa (Continente) , Humanos , Epidemia de Opioides , Trastornos Relacionados con Opioides/tratamiento farmacológico , Trastornos Relacionados con Opioides/epidemiología , Pautas de la Práctica en Medicina , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Opioid use for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) is under debate. In the absence of pan-European guidance on this issue, a position paper was commissioned by the European Pain Federation (EFIC). METHODS: The clinical practice recommendations were developed by eight scientific societies and one patient self-help organization under the coordination of EFIC. A systematic literature search in MEDLINE (up until January 2020) was performed. Two categories of guidance are given: Evidence-based recommendations (supported by evidence from systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials or of observational studies) and Good Clinical Practice (GCP) statements (supported either by indirect evidence or by case-series, case-control studies and clinical experience). The GRADE system was applied to move from evidence to recommendations. The recommendations and GCP statements were developed by a multiprofessional task force (including nursing, service users, physicians, physiotherapy and psychology) and formal multistep procedures to reach a set of consensus recommendations. The clinical practice recommendations were reviewed by five external reviewers from North America and Europe and were also posted for public comment. RESULTS: The European Clinical Practice Recommendations give guidance for combination with other medications, the management of frequent (e.g. nausea, constipation) and rare (e.g. hyperalgesia) side effects, for special clinical populations (e.g. children and adolescents, pregnancy) and for special situations (e.g. liver cirrhosis). CONCLUSION: If a trial with opioids for chronic noncancer pain is conducted, detailed knowledge and experience are needed to adapt the opioid treatment to a special patient group and/or clinical situation and to manage side effects effectively. SIGNIFICANCE: If a trial with opioids for chronic noncancer pain is conducted, detailed knowledge and experience are needed to adapt the opioid treatment to a special patient group and/or clinical situation and to manage side effects effectively. A collaboration of medical specialties and of all health care professionals is needed for some special populations and clinical situations.
Asunto(s)
Dolor Crónico , Trastornos Relacionados con Opioides , Adolescente , Analgésicos Opioides/efectos adversos , Niño , Dolor Crónico/tratamiento farmacológico , Europa (Continente) , Humanos , América del NorteRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Opioid use for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) is complex. In the absence of pan-European guidance on this issue, a position paper was commissioned by the European Pain Federation (EFIC). METHODS: The clinical practice recommendations were developed by eight scientific societies and one patient self-help organization under the coordination of EFIC. A systematic literature search in MEDLINE (up until January 2020) was performed. Two categories of guidance are given: Evidence-based recommendations (supported by evidence from systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials or of observational studies) and Good Clinical Practice (GCP) statements (supported either by indirect evidence or by case-series, case-control studies and clinical experience). The GRADE system was applied to move from evidence to recommendations. The recommendations and GCP statements were developed by a multiprofessional task force (including nursing, service users, physicians, physiotherapy and psychology) and formal multistep procedures to reach a set of consensus recommendations. The clinical practice recommendations were reviewed by five external reviewers from North America and Europe and were also posted for public comment. RESULTS: The key clinical practice recommendations suggest: (a) first optimizing established non-pharmacological treatments and non-opioid analgesics and (b) considering opioid treatment if established non-pharmacological treatments or non-opioid analgesics are not effective and/or not tolerated and/or contraindicated. Evidence- and clinical consensus-based potential indications and contraindications for opioid treatment are presented. Eighteen GCP recommendations give guidance regarding clinical evaluation, as well as opioid treatment assessment, monitoring, continuation and discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: Opioids remain a treatment option for some selected patients with CNCP under careful surveillance. SIGNIFICANCE: In chronic pain, opioids are neither a universal cure nor a universally dangerous weapon. They should only be used for some selected chronic noncancer pain syndromes if established non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatment options have failed in supervised pain patients as part of a comprehensive, multi-modal, multi-disciplinary approach to treatment. In this context alone, opioid therapy can be a useful tool in achieving and maintaining an optimal level of pain control in some patients.
Asunto(s)
Dolor Crónico , Trastornos Relacionados con Opioides , Analgésicos Opioides/uso terapéutico , Dolor Crónico/tratamiento farmacológico , Europa (Continente) , Humanos , América del NorteRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: We studied the influence of ephedrine or phenylephrine infusion administered immediately after spinal anesthesia (SA) on hemodynamics in elderly orthopedic patients. METHODS: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. After a subarachnoid injection of 15 mg of levobupivacaine, the participants received an infusion of either ephedrine 20 mg (E group), phenylephrine 250 mcg (P group) or saline (C group) within 30 min. We measured blood pressure, cardiac index (CI) and heart rate (HR) from 15 min before to 30 min after SA. RESULTS: Seventy patients were included in the final analysis. At the end of measurements, mean arterial pressure (MAP) decreased significantly after SA in comparison to the baseline value in the C group but was maintained in the P and E group, with no significant differences between the groups. CI decreased after SA in the C group, was maintained in the P group, and increased significantly in the E group with significant differences between the C and E group (p = 0.049) also between the P and E (p = 0.01) group at the end of measurements. HR decreased significantly after SA in the C and P group but was maintained in the E group, with significant differences between the P and E group (p = 0.033) at the end of measurements. CONCLUSIONS: Hemodynamic changes after SA in elderly orthopedic patients can be prevented by an immediate infusion of phenylephrine or ephedrine. In addition to maintaining blood pressure, the ephedrine infusion also maintains HR and increases CI after SA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry with registration number ISRCTN44377602, retrospectively registered on 15 June 2017.
Asunto(s)
Efedrina/administración & dosificación , Procedimientos Ortopédicos/métodos , Fenilefrina/administración & dosificación , Vasoconstrictores/administración & dosificación , Anciano , Anestesia Raquidea/métodos , Anestésicos Locales/administración & dosificación , Presión Sanguínea/efectos de los fármacos , Método Doble Ciego , Femenino , Frecuencia Cardíaca/efectos de los fármacos , Humanos , Levobupivacaína/administración & dosificación , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios Prospectivos , Espacio SubaracnoideoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Pain is a common symptom in patients who survive cancer and in those who live with progressive advanced disease. Evidence from meta-analyses suggests that pain remains poorly controlled for a large proportion of patients; barriers to good management include poor assessment of pain, inadequate support for patient self-management and late or inadequate access to strong opioid analgesia in those with advanced disease. METHODS: The European Pain Federation (EFIC) established a Task Force in 2017 which convened a European group of experts, drawn from a diverse range of relevant clinical disciplines, to prepare a position paper on appropriate standards for the management of cancer-related pain. The expert panel reviewed the available literature and made recommendations using the GRADE system to combine quality of evidence with strength of recommendation. The panel took into account the desirable and undesirable effects of the management recommendation, including the cost and inconvenience of each when deciding the recommendation. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The 10 standards presented are aimed to improve cancer pain management and reduce variation in practice across Europe. The Task Force believes that adoption of these standards by all 37 countries will promote the quality of care of patients with cancer-related pain and reduce unnecessary suffering. SIGNIFICANCE: Pain affects up to 40% of cancer survivors and affects at least 66% of patients with advanced progressive disease, many of whom experience poor pain control. These 10 standards are aimed to improve cancer pain management, promote the quality of care of patients and reduce variation across Europe.
Asunto(s)
Analgésicos Opioides/uso terapéutico , Dolor en Cáncer/terapia , Manejo del Dolor/métodos , Dimensión del Dolor/métodos , Europa (Continente) , Humanos , AutomanejoRESUMEN
Cannabis-based medicines are being approved for pain management in an increasing number of European countries. There are uncertainties and controversies on the role and appropriate use of cannabis-based medicines for the management of chronic pain. EFIC convened a European group of experts, drawn from a diverse range of basic science and relevant clinical disciplines, to prepare a position paper to empower and inform specialist and nonspecialist prescribers on appropriate use of cannabis-based medicines for chronic pain. The expert panel reviewed the available literature and harnessed the clinical experience to produce these series of recommendations. Therapy with cannabis-based medicines should only be considered by experienced clinicians as part of a multidisciplinary treatment and preferably as adjunctive medication if guideline-recommended first- and second-line therapies have not provided sufficient efficacy or tolerability. The quantity and quality of evidence are such that cannabis-based medicines may be reasonably considered for chronic neuropathic pain. For all other chronic pain conditions (cancer, non-neuropathic noncancer pain), the use of cannabis-based medicines should be regarded as an individual therapeutic trial. Realistic goals of therapy have to be defined. All patients must be kept under close clinical surveillance. As with any other medical therapy, if the treatment fails to reach the predefined goals and/or the patient is additionally burdened by an unacceptable level of adverse effects and/or there are signs of abuse and misuse of the drug by the patient, therapy with cannabis-based medicines should be terminated. SIGNIFICANCE: This position paper provides expert recommendations for nonspecialist and specialist healthcare professionals in Europe, on the importance and the appropriate use of cannabis-based medicines as part of a multidisciplinary approach to pain management, in properly selected and supervised patients.
Asunto(s)
Cannabis , Dolor Crónico/tratamiento farmacológico , Marihuana Medicinal/uso terapéutico , Neuralgia/tratamiento farmacológico , Europa (Continente) , Humanos , Manejo del DolorRESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Acute zoster pain usually disappears with regression of the rash but may be of significant intensity and prolonged duration leading to postherpetic neuralgia. We evaluated the effect of pregabalin on alleviation of acute zoster pain and onset of postherpetic neuralgia. METHODS: The prospective randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study included 29 outpatients who had had acute zoster pain for a period of 7-14 days. Patients were treated for three weeks with 150-300 mg pregabalin daily or with a placebo. Pain was treated with naproxen, tramadol or oxycodone, as necessary. During the treatment we assessed pain, allodynia, hyperalgesia, severity of burning, prickling and tingling sensations, quality of sleep, physical activity, consumption of analgesics, manifestation of adverse events and postherpetic neuralgia. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences with respect to patients' demographic data, dermatomal distribution and severity of rash, use of antiviral therapy or duration of acute zoster pain. Standard statistical analyses found no significant differences between the two treatment groups in intensity of pain, allodynia, hyperalgesia, burning, prickling and tingling sensations, consumption of analgesics, or the quality of sleep and physical activity; there was also no significant difference in development of postherpetic neuralgia. However, there were statistically significant differences between the groups in the occurrence of dizziness and somnolence in relation to pregabalin. CONCLUSION: The study did not prove any statistically significant effect of pregabalin in pain relief in patients with acute zoster pain or in the onset of postherpetic neuralgia in comparison with the placebo. The use of pregabalin was related to a statistically significant increase in the appearance of adverse effects.
Asunto(s)
Analgésicos/uso terapéutico , Herpes Zóster/tratamiento farmacológico , Neuralgia Posherpética/tratamiento farmacológico , Dimensión del Dolor/efectos de los fármacos , Ácido gamma-Aminobutírico/análogos & derivados , Enfermedad Aguda , Adulto , Anciano , Analgésicos/efectos adversos , Método Doble Ciego , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Pregabalina , Estudios Prospectivos , Eslovenia , Ácido gamma-Aminobutírico/efectos adversos , Ácido gamma-Aminobutírico/uso terapéuticoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Since chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a complex biopsychosocial problem the ideal treatment is multimodal and multidisciplinary. However, in many countries, primary-care physicians care for many people with CLBP and have a pivotal role in selecting patients for more intensive treatments when these are available. Guidelines on the general use of strong opioids in chronic non-cancer pain have been published but, until now, no specific guidelines were available on their use in chronic low back pain. Given the prevalence of CLBP, and the complex nature of this multifactorial condition, it was felt that specific, evidence-based recommendations, with a focus on primary-care treatment, would be helpful. METHODS: An expert panel drawn from across Europe including pain specialists, anaesthetists, neurologists, rheumatologists, a general practitioner, an epidemiologist and the chairman of a pain charity was therefore convened. The aim of the group was to develop evidence-based recommendations that could be used as a framework for more specific guidelines to reflect local differences in the availability of specialist pain services and in the legal status and availability of strong opioids. Statements were based on published evidence (identified by a literature search) wherever possible, and supported by clinical experience when suitable evidence was lacking. RECOMMENDATIONS: Strong opioids have a role in the treatment of low back pain when other treatments have failed. They should be prescribed as part of a multimodal, and ideally interdisciplinary, treatment plan. The aim of treatment should be to relieve pain and facilitate rehabilitation.