Opioid prescriptions and patients' health services utilization and cost before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: an exploratory population-based administrative data analysis.

The objective was to explore percentages of the population treated with prescribed opioids and costs of opioid-related hospitalizations and emergency department (ED) visits among individuals treated with prescription opioids and costs of all opioid-related hospitalizations and ED visits in the province (i.e., provincial costs) before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in Alberta, Canada. In administrative data, we identified individuals treated with prescription opioids and opioid-related hospitalizations and ED visits among those individuals and among all individuals in the province between 2015/16 and 2021/22 fiscal years. Services used were counted on an item-by-item basis and costed using case-mix approaches. Annually, from 9.98% (2020/21-2021/22) to 14.52% (2017/18) of the provincial population was treated with prescription opioids. Between 2015/16 and 2021/22, annual costs of opioid-related hospitalizations and ED visits among individuals treated with prescription opioids were ∼$5 and ∼$2 million, respectively. In 2020/21-2021/22, the provincial costs of opioid-related hospitalizations (∼$14 million) and ED visits (∼$7.0 million) were almost twice the costs observed in 2015/16 and immediately before the pandemic (2019/20). Our findings suggest that increases in the opioid-related utilization of inpatient and ED services between 2015/16 and 2021/22, including the drastic increases observed during the COVID-19 pandemic, were likely driven by unregulated substances.

Face validity of the ICD-10 criteria of substance abuse and dependence for patients prescribed cannabis-based medicines for chronic pain-A survey of pain medicine physicians in Canada, Germany and Israel.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: A major concern with cannabis-based medicines (CbM) and medical cannabis (MC) is the risk of abuse and dependence. The face validity of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) criteria for cannabis dependence in patients prescribed CbM for chronic pain has not been assessed. DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT: Physicians from Canada, Germany and Israel were recruited via the mailing lists of national pain societies. To be eligible, physicians had to have prescribed CbM for chronic pain treatment in the past 12 months. Participants were asked to rate the appropriateness of items adapted from the substance use module of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview Version 3.0 to assess dependence in the context of chronic pain treatment with CbM and the appropriateness of two additional items. In case of disagreement, participants were asked to give reasons. Furthermore, they were asked to suggest potential additional criteria. RESULTS: On average 69.0% of 178 participating physicians indicated agreement with the appropriateness of the ICD-10 criteria, while 20.6% indicated disagreement. The highest disagreement rate was observed for the item on repeated use despite legal problems (35.4% disagreement or strong disagreement). Reasons for disagreement were summarized into six content categories using qualitative methods of analysis. Additional criteria suggested by participants were summarized into 10 content categories. CONCLUSIONS: A collaboration of psychiatrists and pain physicians is required to define criteria and develop instruments to capture abuse and dependence of CbM in chronic pain patients. SIGNIFICANCE: Sixty-nine per cent of 178 pain medicine physicians in Canada, Germany and Israel who participated in a survey on the appropriateness of the ICD-10 criteria for cannabis abuse and dependence for patients prescribed cannabis-derived products for chronic pain assessed the criteria as appropriate, whereas 20.6% deemed the criteria as not appropriate.

Economic burden of chronic pain in Alberta, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Although chronic pain (CP) is common, little is known about its economic burden in Alberta, Canada. AIMS: To estimate incremental (as compared to the general population or people without CP) societal (healthcare and lost productivity) costs of CP in Alberta. METHODS: We applied the prevalence estimated from the Canadian Community Health Survey data to the population retrieved from the Statistics Canada to estimate the number of people with CP in Alberta in 2019. We analyzed the Alberta Health administrative databases to estimate the healthcare costs of person with CP. Finally, we multiplied the number of people with the cost per person. RESULTS: The prevalence of any CP was 20.1% and of activity-preventing CP was 14.5% among people aged > = 12 years. Incremental cost per person with CP per year was CA$2,217 for healthcare services (among people aged > = 12 years) and CA$8,412 for productivity losses (among people aged 18-64 years). Of the healthcare cost, prescription drugs accounted for the largest share (32.8%), followed by inpatient services (31.0%), outpatient services (13.1%), physician services (9.8%), other services (7.4%), and diagnostic imaging (5.8%). Provincially, total incremental cost of CP ranges from CA$1.2 to 1.7 billion for healthcare services (6% to 8% of total provincial health expenditure); and CA$3.4 to 4.7 billion for productivity losses. Considering costs for long-term care services, the total societal cost of CP in Alberta was CA$6.3 to 8.3 billion per year, reflecting 2.0% to 2.7% of Alberta's GDP. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions improving CP prevention and management to reduce this substantial economic burden are urgently needed.

Physician-to-physician telephone consultations for chronic pain patients: A pragmatic randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: The impact of telephone consultations between pain specialists and primary care physicians regarding the care of patients with chronic pain is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of telephone consultations between pain specialists and primary care physicians regarding the care of patients with chronic pain. METHODS: Patients referred to an interdisciplinary chronic pain service were randomly assigned to either receive usual care by the primary care physician, or to have their case discussed in a telephone consultation between a pain specialist and the referring primary care physician. Patients completed a numerical rating scale for pain, the Pain Disability Index and the Short Form-36 on referral, as well as three and six months later. Primary care physicians completed a brief survey to assess their impressions of the telephone consultation. RESULTS: Eighty patients were randomly assigned to either the usual care group or the standard telephone consultation group, and 67 completed the study protocol. Patients were comparable on baseline pain and demographic characteristics. No differences were found between the groups at six months after referral in regard to pain, disability or quality of life measures. Eighty percent of primary care physicians indicated that they learned new patient care strategies from the telephone consultation, and 97% reported that the consultation answered their questions and helped in the care of their patient. DISCUSSION: Most primary care physicians reported that a telephone consultation with a pain specialist answered their questions, improved their patients' care and resulted in new learning. Differences in patient status compared with a usual care control group were not detectable at six-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: While telephone consultations are clearly an acceptable strategy for knowledge translation, additional strategies may be required to actually impact patient outcomes.

Canadian Pain Society and Canadian Rheumatology Association recommendations for rational care of persons with fibromyalgia: a summary report.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize the development of evidence-based guidelines for the clinical care of persons with fibromyalgia (FM), taking into account advances in understanding of the pathogenesis of FM, new diagnostic criteria, and new treatment options. METHODS: Recommendations for diagnosis, treatment, and patient followup were drafted according to the classification system of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, and following review were endorsed by the Canadian Rheumatology Association and the Canadian Pain Society. RESULTS: FM is a polysymptomatic syndrome presenting a spectrum of severity, with a pivotal symptom of body pain. FM is a positive clinical diagnosis, not a diagnosis of exclusion, and not requiring specialist confirmation. There are no confirmatory laboratory tests, although some investigation may be indicated to exclude other conditions. Ideal care is in the primary care setting, incorporating nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic strategies in a multimodal approach with active patient participation. The treatment objective should be reduction of symptoms, but also improved function using a patient-tailored treatment approach that is symptom-based. Self-management strategies combining good lifestyle habits and fostering a strong locus of control are imperative. Medications afford only modest relief, with doses often lower than suggested, and drug combinations used according to clinical judgment. There is a need for continued reassessment of the risk-benefit ratio for any drug treatment. Outcome should be aimed toward functioning within a normal life pattern and any culture of disablement should be discouraged. CONCLUSION: These guidelines should provide the health community with reassurance for the global care of patients with FM with the aim of improving patient outcome by reducing symptoms and maintaining function.

2012 Canadian Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of fibromyalgia syndrome: executive summary.

BACKGROUND: Recent neurophysiological evidence attests to the validity of fibromyalgia (FM), a chronic pain condition that affects >2% of the population. OBJECTIVES: To present the evidence-based guidelines for the diagnosis, management and patient trajectory of individuals with FM. METHODS: A needs assessment following consultation with diverse health care professionals identified questions pertinent to various aspects of FM. A literature search identified the evidence available to address these questions; evidence was graded according to the standards of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. Drafted recommendations were appraised by an advisory panel to reflect meaningful clinical practice. RESULTS: The present recommendations incorporate the new clinical concepts of FM as a clinical construct without any defining physical abnormality or biological marker, characterized by fluctuating, diffuse body pain and the frequent symptoms of sleep disturbance, fatigue, mood and cognitive changes. In the absence of a defining cause or cure, treatment objectives should be patient-tailored and symptom-based, aimed at reducing global complaints and enhancing function. Healthy lifestyle practices with active patient participation in health care forms the cornerstone of care. Multimodal management may include nonpharmacological and pharmacological strategies, although it must be acknowledged that pharmacological treatments provide only modest benefit. Maintenance of function and retention in the workforce is encouraged. CONCLUSIONS: The new Canadian guidelines for the treatment of FM should provide health professionals with confidence in the complete care of these patients and improve clinical outcomes.