Comprehensive, evidence-based, consensus guidelines for prescription of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain from the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP)

Opioid prescribing in the United States is decreasing, however, the opioid epidemic is continuing at an uncontrollable rate. Available data show a significant number of opioid deaths, primarily associated with illicit fentanyl use. It is interesting to also note that the data show no clear correlation between opioid prescribing (either number of prescriptions or morphine milligram equivalent [MME] per capita), opioid hospitalizations, and deaths. Furthermore, the data suggest that the 2016 guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have resulted in notable problems including increased hospitalizations and mental health disorders due to the lack of appropriate opioid prescribing as well as inaptly rapid tapering or weaning processes. Consequently, when examined in light of other policies and complications caused by COVID-19, a fourth wave of the opioid epidemic has been emerging. In light of this, we herein seek to provide guidance for the prescription of opioids for the management of chronic non-cancer pain. These clinical practice guidelines are based upon a systematic review of both clinical and epidemiological evidence and have been developed by a panel of multidisciplinary experts assessing the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations and offer a clear explanation of logical relationships between various care options and health outcomes. The methods utilized included the development of objectives and key questions for the various facets of opioid prescribing practice. Also utilized were employment of trustworthy standards, and appropriate disclosures of conflicts of interest(s). The literature pertaining to opioid use, abuse, effectiveness, and adverse consequences was reviewed. The recommendations were developed after the appropriate review of text and questions by a panel of multidisciplinary subject matter experts, who tabulated comments, incorporated changes, and developed focal responses to questions posed

Comprehensive, Evidence-Based, Consensus Guidelines for Prescription of Opioids for Chronic Non-Cancer Pain from the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP).

BACKGROUND: Opioid prescribing in the United States is decreasing, however, the opioid epidemic is continuing at an uncontrollable rate. Available data show a significant number of opioid deaths, primarily associated with illicit fentanyl use. It is interesting to also note that the data show no clear correlation between opioid prescribing (either number of prescriptions or morphine milligram equivalent [MME] per capita), opioid hospitalizations, and deaths. Furthermore, the data suggest that the 2016 guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have resulted in notable problems including increased hospitalizations and mental health disorders due to the lack of appropriate opioid prescribing as well as inaptly rapid tapering or weaning processes. Consequently, when examined in light of other policies and complications caused by COVID-19, a fourth wave of the opioid epidemic has been emerging. OBJECTIVES: In light of this, we herein seek to provide guidance for the prescription of opioids for the management of chronic non-cancer pain. These clinical practice guidelines are based upon a systematic review of both clinical and epidemiological evidence and have been developed by a panel of multidisciplinary experts assessing the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations and offer a clear explanation of logical relationships between various care options and health outcomes. METHODS: The methods utilized included the development of objectives and key questions for the various facets of opioid prescribing practice. Also utilized were employment of trustworthy standards, and appropriate disclosures of conflicts of interest(s). The literature pertaining to opioid use, abuse, effectiveness, and adverse consequences was reviewed. The recommendations were developed after the appropriate review of text and questions by a panel of multidisciplinary subject matter experts, who tabulated comments, incorporated changes, and developed focal responses to questions posed. The multidisciplinary panel finalized 20 guideline recommendations for prescription of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain. Summary of the results showed over 90% agreement for the final 20 recommendations with strong consensus. The consensus guidelines included 4 sections specific to opioid therapy with 1) ten recommendations particular to initial steps of opioid therapy; 2) five recommendations for assessment of effectiveness of opioid therapy; 3) three recommendations regarding monitoring adherence and side effects; and 4) two general, final phase recommendations. LIMITATIONS: There is a continued paucity of literature of long-term opioid therapy addressing chronic non-cancer pain. Further, significant biases exist in the preparation of guidelines, which has led to highly variable rules and regulations across various states. CONCLUSION: These guidelines were developed based upon a comprehensive review of the literature, consensus among expert panelists, and in alignment with patient preferences, and shared decision-making so as to improve the long-term pain relief and function in patients with chronic non-cancer pain. Consequently, it was concluded - and herein recommended - that chronic opioid therapy should be provided in low doses with appropriate adherence monitoring and understanding of adverse events only to those patients with a proven medical necessity, and who exhibit stable improvement in both pain relief and activities of daily function, either independently or in conjunction with other modalities of treatments.

Long-term efficacy of high-frequency (10 kHz) spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy: 24-Month results of a randomized controlled trial.

AIMS: To evaluate the long-term efficacy of high-frequency (10 kHz) spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for treating refractory painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN). METHODS: The SENZA-PDN study was a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial that compared conventional medical management (CMM) alone with 10 kHz SCS plus CMM (10 kHz SCS+CMM) in 216 patients with refractory PDN. After 6 months, participants with insufficient pain relief could cross over to the other treatment. In total, 142 patients with a 10 kHz SCS system were followed for 24 months, including 84 initial 10 kHz SCS+CMM recipients and 58 crossovers from CMM alone. Assessments included pain intensity, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), sleep, and neurological function. Investigators assessed neurological function via sensory, reflex, and motor tests. They identified a clinically meaningful improvement relative to the baseline assessment if there was a significant persistent improvement in neurological function that impacted the participant's well-being and was attributable to a neurological finding. RESULTS: At 24 months, 10 kHz SCS reduced pain by a mean of 79.9% compared to baseline, with 90.1% of participants experiencing ≥50% pain relief. Participants had significantly improved HRQoL and sleep, and 65.7% demonstrated clinically meaningful neurological improvement. Five (3.2%) SCS systems were explanted due to infection. CONCLUSIONS: Over 24 months, 10 kHz SCS provided durable pain relief and significant improvements in HRQoL and sleep. Furthermore, the majority of participants demonstrated neurological improvement. These long-term data support 10 kHz SCS as a safe and highly effective therapy for PDN. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClincalTrials.gov Identifier, NCT03228420.

High-Frequency 10-kHz Spinal Cord Stimulation Improves Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients With Refractory Painful Diabetic Neuropathy: 12-Month Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Objective: To evaluate high-frequency (10-kHz) spinal cord stimulation (SCS) treatment in refractory painful diabetic neuropathy. Patients and Methods: A prospective, multicenter randomized controlled trial was conducted between Aug 28, 2017 and March 16, 2021, comparing conventional medical management (CMM) with 10-kHz SCS+CMM. The participants had hemoglobin A1c level of less than or equal to 10% and pain greater than or equal to 5 of 10 cm on visual analog scale, with painful diabetic neuropathy symptoms 12 months or more refractory to gabapentinoids and at least 1 other analgesic class. Assessments included measures of pain, neurologic function, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) over 12 months with optional crossover at 6 months. Results: The participants were randomized 1:1 to CMM (n=103) or 10-kHz SCS+CMM (n=113). At 6 months, 77 of 95 (81%) CMM group participants opted for crossover, whereas none of the 10-kHz SCS group participants did so. At 12 months, the mean pain relief from baseline among participants implanted with 10-kHz SCS was 74.3% (95% CI, 70.1-78.5), and 121 of 142 (85%) participants were treatment responders (≥50% pain relief). Treatment with 10-kHz SCS improved HRQoL, including a mean improvement in the EuroQol 5-dimensional questionnaire index score of 0.136 (95% CI, 0.104-0.169). The participants also reported significantly less pain interference with sleep, mood, and daily activities. At 12 months, 131 of 142 (92%) participants were "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with the 10-kHz SCS treatment. Conclusion: The 10-kHz SCS treatment resulted in substantial pain relief and improvement in overall HRQoL 2.5- to 4.5-fold higher than the minimal clinically important difference. The outcomes were durable over 12 months and support 10-kHz SCS treatment in patients with refractory painful diabetic neuropathy. Trial registration: clincaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT03228420.

Ten kHz spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of chronic peripheral polyneuropathy: 12-Month results from prospective open-label pilot study.

BACKGROUND: The goal of this study was to demonstrate that the paresthesia-independent 10 kHz spinal cord stimulation (SCS) can provide long-term pain relief in patients with peripheral polyneuropathy (PPN). Clinically diagnosed subjects with PPN refractory to conventional medical management were enrolled in this prospective, multicenter study between November 2015 and August 2016, after institutional review board approval and patient informed consent were obtained. METHODS: Subjects underwent trial stimulation utilizing 2 epidural leads, and if successful, were implanted with a permanent 10 kHz SCS system and followed up for 12 months post-implant. Outcome measures included adverse events, pain, neurological assessments, disability, function, quality of life, pain interference, sleep, satisfaction, and global impression of change. Data are presented as descriptive statistics. Permanent implant population results are reported as mean ± standard error. RESULTS: Twenty-one of the 26 trialed subjects had a successful trial and 18 received a permanent implant. All subjects had the leads placed anatomically without the need for paresthesia. Subjects experienced significant and sustained pain relief (at least 65% at all timepoints) whereas physicians noted improvements in neurological function. Significant improvements in disability, function, sleep, sensory, and affective dimensions of pain were reported at all timepoints. All adverse events were resolved without sequelae. CONCLUSION: Findings from this study suggest that 10 kHz SCS may provide sustained pain relief and disability improvements in patients suffering from PPN.

Effect of High-frequency (10-kHz) Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients With Painful Diabetic Neuropathy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Many patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathy experience chronic pain and inadequate relief despite best available medical treatments. Objective: To determine whether 10-kHz spinal cord stimulation (SCS) improves outcomes for patients with refractory painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN). Design, Setting, and Participants: The prospective, multicenter, open-label SENZA-PDN randomized clinical trial compared conventional medical management (CMM) with 10-kHz SCS plus CMM. Participants with PDN for 1 year or more refractory to gabapentinoids and at least 1 other analgesic class, lower limb pain intensity of 5 cm or more on a 10-cm visual analogue scale (VAS), body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) of 45 or less, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) of 10% or less, daily morphine equivalents of 120 mg or less, and medically appropriate for the procedure were recruited from clinic patient populations and digital advertising. Participants were enrolled from multiple sites across the US, including academic centers and community pain clinics, between August 2017 and August 2019 with 6-month follow-up and optional crossover at 6 months. Screening 430 patients resulted in 214 who were excluded or declined participation and 216 who were randomized. At 6-month follow-up, 187 patients were evaluated. Interventions: Implanted medical device delivering 10-kHz SCS. Main Outcomes and Measures: The prespecified primary end point was percentage of participants with 50% pain relief or more on VAS without worsening of baseline neurological deficits at 3 months. Secondary end points were tested hierarchically, as prespecified in the analysis plan. Measures included pain VAS, neurological examination, health-related quality of life (EuroQol Five-Dimension questionnaire), and HbA1c over 6 months. Results: Of 216 randomized patients, 136 (63.0%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 60.8 (10.7) years. Additionally, the median (interquartile range) duration of diabetes and peripheral neuropathy were 10.9 (6.3-16.4) years and 5.6 (3.0-10.1) years, respectively. The primary end point assessed in the intention-to-treat population was met by 5 of 94 patients in the CMM group (5%) and 75 of 95 patients in the 10-kHz SCS plus CMM group (79%; difference, 73.6%; 95% CI, 64.2-83.0; P < .001). Infections requiring device explant occurred in 2 patients in the 10-kHz SCS plus CMM group (2%). For the CMM group, the mean pain VAS score was 7.0 cm (95% CI, 6.7-7.3) at baseline and 6.9 cm (95% CI, 6.5-7.3) at 6 months. For the 10-kHz SCS plus CMM group, the mean pain VAS score was 7.6 cm (95% CI, 7.3-7.9) at baseline and 1.7 cm (95% CI, 1.3-2.1) at 6 months. Investigators observed neurological examination improvements for 3 of 92 patients in the CMM group (3%) and 52 of 84 in the 10-kHz SCS plus CMM group (62%) at 6 months (difference, 58.6%; 95% CI, 47.6-69.6; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Substantial pain relief and improved health-related quality of life sustained over 6 months demonstrates 10-kHz SCS can safely and effectively treat patients with refractory PDN. Trial Registration: ClincalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03228420.

Long-Term Efficacy of a Novel Spinal Cord Stimulation Clinical Workflow Using Kilohertz Stimulation: Twelve-Month Results From the Vectors Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Multiple variables play a role in spinal cord stimulation (SCS) treatment outcomes, including patient anatomy, pain pattern, lead location, stimulation parameters, and so on. A wide range of stimulation parameters are considered safe and on-label, and as a result a growing number of new frequencies and frequency-combinations are being incorporated into standard practice. A standardized approach to therapy delivery may provide more consistent outcomes for more patients. The Vectors study evaluated whether there is significant sustained improvement in pain and functional outcomes when therapy is delivered using a standardized approach. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Vectors, a post-market, single-arm study evaluated the safety and efficacy of SCS with an implantable neurostimulator starting with 1 kHz stimulation, targeting the T9-T10 disc space following paresthesia mapping. Subjects with chronic intractable low back and leg pain (visual analogue scale [VAS] ≥ 50 mm) were enrolled. The primary endpoint was change in overall pain (VAS) at the three-month visit compared to baseline. Subjects were followed through 12 months. Secondary endpoints included changes in low back and leg pain, quality of life (European Quality of Life - Five Dimensions, EQ-5D-5L), disability (Oswestry Disability Index, ODI), individual subject goals, and subject satisfaction. RESULTS: There was a significant reduction in overall pain (VAS; 45.4 mm) through the three-month visit, which was sustained through 12 months. At 12 months, 79% of subjects had ≥50% improvement in at least one pain domain (overall, lowback or leg) with 85% of subjects reporting therapy satisfaction. There was a decrease in disability and an improvement in quality of life with 70% of subjects achieving a personal activity goal by the three-month visit. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term pain relief and improvement in quality of life and function were achieved when following a standardized workflow. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Clinicaltrials.gov registration number for the study is NCT03345472.

10-kHz spinal cord stimulation treatment for painful diabetic neuropathy: results from post-hoc analysis of the SENZA-PPN study.

Aim: Previous studies of 10 kHz spinal cord stimulation demonstrated its safety and efficacy for treatment of neuropathic pain of the trunk and/or limbs. This study analyzed data from a subset of subjects with painful diabetic neuropathy enrolled in a prospective, multicenter study of peripheral polyneuropathy with various etiologies. Materials & methods: Of the eight subjects that had permanent devices, seven attended the 12-month follow-up assessment. Results & conclusion: At 12 months, 6/7 subjects were treatment responders (≥50% pain relief) and had pain remission (visual analog scale ≤ 3.0 cm). Worsening of neurologic deficits was not reported in any subject. Instead, 5/7 subjects showed improvements in sensory testing and/or reflexes. These results support further investigation of 10 kHz spinal cord stimulation as a safe and effective treatment for intractable painful diabetic neuropathy.

Options: A Prospective, Open-Label Study of High-Dose Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients with Chronic Back and Leg Pain.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic approaches to spinal cord stimulation (SCS) continue to evolve and improve patient outcomes in patients receiving SCS therapy secondary to failed back surgery syndrome. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate pain relief and other patient outcomes of SCS using selected high-dose programming parameters. STUDY DESIGN: This was a prospective cohort study. SETTING: This study took place at 11 centers in North America. METHODS: Forty-four SCS-naive patients underwent trialing, starting with 1,000 Hz frequency, 90 µs pulse width followed by 300 Hz frequency, 800 µs pulse width, if pain relief was inadequate. Patients with 50% or greater pain relief were eligible for permanent implantation. Patient's pain rating, global impression of change, health-related quality of life, functional disability, satisfaction/recommendation, stimulation perception, device programming, and adverse events were assessed at 3 months postimplant. RESULTS: There were significant improvements from baseline in mean Numeric Rating Scale (NRS-11) pain scores for overall pain (7.5 to 3.8; P < 0.01), back pain (7.2 to 3.4; P < 0.01), leg pain (7.2 to 3.1; P < 0.01), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score (51.5 to 32.1; P < 0.01), and European Quality of Life-Five Dimensions, version 5L score (EQ-5D-5L) (0.58 to 0.74; P < 0.01). Twenty-eight of 32 patients (88%) had significant, favorable improvement in Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC). Eighty-four percent of patients were "satisfied," and 78.1% would "definitely" recommend SCS. Eighteen patients (56%) used 1,000 Hz frequency and 90 µs pulse width exclusively; these patients experienced mean NRS-11 overall pain score improvement of 4.7 points. Device-, therapy-, or procedure-related adverse events were experienced in 19 patients (40%, 19 of 48), and all events resolved without reoperation and were similar to those observed with traditional SCS systems. LIMITATIONS: There was no active or sham comparator group, and therefore the reported effects may not be solely attributable to therapy effects and may be related to other, nonspecific effects of SCS. CONCLUSIONS: Improvements in pain relief, PGIC, EQ-5D-5L, ODI, and patient satisfaction were all clinically relevant and statistically significant. Future studies are needed to understand how these high-dose parameters perform versus a standard comparator. KEY WORDS: Spinal cord stimulation, high-frequency electrical stimulation, failed back surgery syndrome, neurostimulation, prospective, nonrandomized study.

Prescription Opioid Abuse in Chronic Pain: An Updated Review of Opioid Abuse Predictors and Strategies to Curb Opioid Abuse: Part 1.

Chronic pain and prescription opioid abuse are extremely prevalent both in this country and worldwide. Consequences of opioid misuse can be life-threatening with significant morbidity and mortality, exacting a heavy toll on patients, physicians, and society. Individuals with chronic pain and co-occurring substance use disorders and/or mental health disorders, are at a higher risk for misuse of prescribed opioids. Opioid abuse and misuse occurs for a variety of reasons, including self-medication, use for reward, compulsive use because of addiction, and diversion for profit. There is a significant need for treatment approaches that balance treating chronic pain; while minimizing risks for opioid abuse, misuse, and diversion. The use of chronic opioid therapy for chronic non-cancer pain has increased dramatically in the past 2 decades in conjunction with associated increases in the abuse of prescribed opioids and accidental opioid overdoses. Consequently, a validated screening instrument which provides an effective and rational method of selecting patients for opioid therapy, predicting risk, and identifying problems once they arise could be of enormous benefit in clinical practice. Such an instrument could potentially curb the risk of iatrogenic addiction. Although several screening instruments and strategies have been introduced in recent years, there is no single test or instrument which can reliably and accurately predict those patients not suitable for opioid therapy or identify those who need increased vigilance or monitoring during therapy. At present, screening for opioid abuse includes assessment of premorbid and comorbid substance abuse; assessment of aberrant drug-related behaviors; risk factor stratification; and utilization of opioid assessment screening tools. Multiple opioid assessment screening tools and instruments have been developed by various authors. In addition, urine drug testing, monitoring of prescribing practices, prescription monitoring programs, opioid treatment agreements, and utilization of universal precautions are essential. Presently, a combination of strategies is recommended to stratify risk, to identify and understand aberrant drug related behaviors, and to tailor treatments accordingly. This manuscript builds on the 2012 opioid guidelines published in Pain Physician and the 2016 guidelines released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It reviews the current state of knowledge regarding the growing problem of opioid abuse and misuse; known risk factors; and methods of predicting, assessing, monitoring, and addressing opioid abuse and misuse in patients with chronic non-cancer pain.Key words: Opioids, misuse, abuse, chronic pain, prevalence, risk assessment, risk management, drug monitoring, aberrant drug-related behavior.

Prescription Opioid Abuse in Chronic Pain: An Updated Review of Opioid Abuse Predictors and Strategies to Curb Opioid Abuse (Part 2).

Chronic pain and prescription opioid abuse are extremely prevalent in the United States and worldwide. The consequences of opioid misuse can be life-threatening with significant morbidity and mortality, exacting a heavy toll on patients, physicians, and society. The risk for misuse of prescribed opioids is much higher in patients with chronic pain, especially those with concurrent substance use and /or mental health disorders. Several reasons can account for the occurrence of opioid abuse and misuse, including self-medication, use for reward, compulsive use related to addiction, and diversion for profit. There is a need, therefore, for therapeutic approaches that balance treating chronic pain, while minimizing risks for opioid abuse, misuse, and diversion. Chronic opioid therapy for chronic non-cancer pain has seen a dramatic increase throughout the past 2 decades in conjunction with associated increases in the abuse of prescribed opioids and accidental opioid overdoses. Consequently, a validated screening instrument that provides an effective and rational method for selecting patients for opioid therapy, predicting risk, and identifying problems once they have arisen, could be of enormous benefit in clinical practice. An instrument as such has the potential to attenuate the risk of iatrogenic addiction. Despite the recent introduction of various screening strategies and instruments, no single test or instrument can reliably and accurately predict those patients unsuitable for opioid therapy or pinpoint those requiring heightened degrees of surveillance and monitoring throughout their therapy. Current opioid abuse screening tactics include assessing premorbid and comorbid substance abuse; assessing aberrant drug-related behaviors; stratification of risk factors; and utilizing opioid assessment screening tools. Several authors have contributed numerous screening tools and instruments to aid the assessment of appropriate opioid therapy. Additional essential measures include urine drug testing, prescription practice monitoring programs, opioid treatment agreements, and implementing universal precautions. Presently accepted recommendations consist of a combination of strategies designed to stratify risk, to identify and to understand aberrant drug-related behaviors, and to tailor treatments accordingly. This manuscript, Part 2 of a 2 part update, builds on the 2012 opioid guidelines published in Pain Physician, and the 2016 guidelines released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It reviews screening, monitoring, and addressing opioid abuse and misuse in patients with chronic non-cancer pain. Opioids, misuse, abuse, chronic pain, prevalence, risk assessment, risk management, drug monitoring, aberrant drug-related behavior.

Responsible, Safe, and Effective Prescription of Opioids for Chronic Non-Cancer Pain: American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Opioid use, abuse, and adverse consequences, including death, have escalated at an alarming rate since the 1990s. In an attempt to control opioid abuse, numerous regulations and guidelines for responsible opioid prescribing have been developed by various organizations. However, the US opioid epidemic is continuing and drug dose deaths tripled during 1999 to 2015. Recent data show a continuing increase in deaths due to natural and semisynthetic opioids, a decline in methadone deaths, and an explosive increase in the rates of deaths involving other opioids, specifically heroin and illicit synthetic fentanyl. Contrary to scientific evidence of efficacy and negative recommendations, a significant proportion of physicians and patients (92%) believe that opioids reduce pain and a smaller proportion (57%) report better quality of life. In preparation of the current guidelines, we have focused on the means to reduce the abuse and diversion of opioids without jeopardizing access for those patients suffering from non-cancer pain who have an appropriate medical indication for opioid use. OBJECTIVES: To provide guidance for the prescription of opioids for the management of chronic non-cancer pain, to develop a consistent philosophy among the many diverse groups with an interest in opioid use as to how appropriately prescribe opioids, to improve the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain and to reduce the likelihood of drug abuse and diversion. These guidelines are intended to provide a systematic and standardized approach to this complex and difficult arena of practice, while recognizing that every clinical situation is unique. METHODS: The methodology utilized included the development of objectives and key questions. The methodology also utilized trustworthy standards, appropriate disclosures of conflicts of interest, as well as a panel of experts from various specialties and groups. The literature pertaining to opioid use, abuse, effectiveness, and adverse consequences was reviewed, with a best evidence synthesis of the available literature, and utilized grading for recommendation as described by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ).Summary of Recommendations:i. Initial Steps of Opioid Therapy 1. Comprehensive assessment and documentation. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong) 2. Screening for opioid abuse to identify opioid abusers. (Evidence: Level II-III; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 3. Utilization of prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs). (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate to strong) 4. Utilization of urine drug testing (UDT). (Evidence: Level II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 5. Establish appropriate physical diagnosis and psychological diagnosis if available. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong) 6. Consider appropriate imaging, physical diagnosis, and psychological status to collaborate with subjective complaints. (Evidence: Level III; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 7. Establish medical necessity based on average moderate to severe (≥ 4 on a scale of 0 - 10) pain and/or disability. (Evidence: Level II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 8. Stratify patients based on risk. (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 9. Establish treatment goals of opioid therapy with regard to pain relief and improvement in function. (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 10. Obtain a robust opioid agreement, which is followed by all parties. (Evidence: Level III; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate)ii. Assessment of Effectiveness of Long-Term Opioid Therapy 11. Initiate opioid therapy with low dose, short-acting drugs, with appropriate monitoring. (Evidence: Level II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 12. Consider up to 40 morphine milligram equivalent (MME) as low dose, 41 to 90 MME as a moderate dose, and greater than 91 MME as high dose. (Evidence: Level II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 13. Avoid long-acting opioids for the initiation of opioid therapy. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong) 14. Recommend methadone only for use after failure of other opioid therapy and only by clinicians with specific training in its risks and uses, within FDA recommended doses. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong) 15. Understand and educate the patients of the effectiveness and adverse consequences. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong) 16. Similar effectiveness for long-acting and short-acting opioids with increased adverse consequences of long-acting opioids. (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of recommendation: Moderate to strong) 17. Periodically assess pain relief and/or functional status improvement of ≥ 30% without adverse consequences. (Evidence: Level II; Strength of recommendation: Moderate) 18. Recommend long-acting or high dose opioids only in specific circumstances with severe intractable pain. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong)iii. Monitoring for Adherence and Side Effects 19. Monitor for adherence, abuse, and noncompliance by UDT and PDMPs. (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate to strong) 20. Monitor patients on methadone with an electrocardiogram periodically. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong). 21. Monitor for side effects including constipation and manage them appropriately, including discontinuation of opioids when indicated. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong)iv. Final Phase 22. May continue with monitoring with continued medical necessity, with appropriate outcomes. (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 23. Discontinue opioid therapy for lack of response, adverse consequences, and abuse with rehabilitation. (Evidence: Level III; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines were developed based on comprehensive review of the literature, consensus among the panelists, in consonance with patient preferences, shared decision-making, and practice patterns with limited evidence, based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to improve pain and function in chronic non-cancer pain on a long-term basis. Consequently, chronic opioid therapy should be provided only to patients with proven medical necessity and stability with improvement in pain and function, independently or in conjunction with other modalities of treatments in low doses with appropriate adherence monitoring and understanding of adverse events.Key words: Chronic pain, persistent pain, non-cancer pain, controlled substances, substance abuse, prescription drug abuse, dependency, opioids, prescription monitoring, drug testing, adherence monitoring, diversionDisclaimer: The guidelines are based on the best available evidence and do not constitute inflexible treatment recommendations. Due to the changing body of evidence, this document is not intended to be a "standard of care."

Fentanyl pectin nasal spray in breakthrough cancer pain.

Abstract Fentanyl pectin nasal spray (FPNS) is being developed to improve analgesic onset, treatment efficacy, and satisfaction/acceptability in treating breakthrough cancer pain (BTCP). Patients (n = 114) were entered into a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicenter study. Patients who successfully titrated (n = 83) entered a double-blind phase; 10 episodes of BTCP were treated with the effective dose (7) or placebo (3). Pain intensity (11-point scale) and pain relief (5-point scale) were assessed between 5 and 60 minutes. Use of rescue medications was recorded, and acceptability assessments were conducted 30 and 60 minutes post dose. Only 6% of patients failed to titrate to an effective dose of FPNS due to lack of efficacy and 5% due to adverse events. A total of 91% of randomized patients completed the study. Episode analysis (FPNS, n = 459; placebo, n = 200) revealed that compared with placebo, 33% of FPNS episodes showed an onset of improvement in pain intensity at 5 minutes (P < 0.05); 33% of episodes by 10 minutes had clinically meaningful pain relief (> or = 2 point decrease in pain intensity; P < 0.0001). Satisfaction with the convenience and ease of use of FPNS was reported by 70% and 68% of patients, respectively; 87% of patients elected to continue treatment post study. FPNS provided rapid analgesia in BTCP and was well accepted by patients.