Pandemic impact and adaptation to telehealth in chronic pain treatment providers across two COVID-19 pandemic years.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has had substantial impacts for both people using pain services and healthcare professionals delivering them. While the effects on service users have been studied, less is known about the effects for service providers. This study aimed to assess the impact of the pandemic on providers and the evolving role of telemedicine in treatment. DESIGN & METHODS: An electronic survey was distributed to the professional membership of the European Pain Federation (EFIC). The survey evaluated impact and adjustment to the COVID-19 pandemic separately across two pandemic years (March 2020-February 2021 and March 2021 to February 2022) and assessed worry about COVID-19, disruption and adjustment of pain services, and use of telehealth services. The change between the first and second pandemic years and the degree to which telehealth services were adopted was evaluated. RESULTS: From 149 respondents, 131 (88%) participants provided sufficient data to be included in the analysis. Both providers worry about the pandemic and service disruption decreased significantly from the first to the second year of the pandemic. Prior to the pandemic, only 30% of providers offered telehealth appointments but this increased to 64% and 83%, respectively, in the first and second years of the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Although provider worry and disruption to delivery of pain services decreased during the second year of COVID-19 pandemic, waiting times for appointments continued to lengthen. The pandemic has hastened the adoption of telemedicine in pain services and plans to continue telehealth services seem common.

Temporal trends and patterns in initial opioid prescriptions after hospital discharge following colectomy in England over 10 years.

BACKGROUND: While opioid analgesics are often necessary for the management of acute postoperative pain, appropriate prescribing practices are crucial to avoid harm. The aim was to investigate the changes in the proportion of people receiving initial opioid prescriptions after hospital discharge following colectomy, and describe trends and patterns in prescription characteristics. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study. Patients undergoing colectomy in England between 2010 and 2019 were included using electronic health record data from linked primary (Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum) and secondary (Hospital Episode Statistics) care. The proportion of patients having an initial opioid prescription issued in primary care within 90 days of hospital discharge was calculated. Prescription characteristics of opioid type and formulation were described. RESULTS: Of 95 155 individuals undergoing colectomy, 15 503 (16.3%) received opioid prescriptions. There was a downward trend in the proportion of patients with no prior opioid exposure (opioid naive) who had a postdischarge opioid prescription (P <0.001), from 11.4% in 2010 to 6.7% in 2019 (-41.3%, P <0.001), whereas the proportions remained stable for those prescribed opioids prior to surgery, from 57.5% in 2010 to 58.3% in 2019 (P = 0.637). Codeine represented 44.5% of all prescriptions and prescribing increased by 14.5% between 2010 and 2019. Prescriptions for morphine and oxycodone rose significantly by 76.6% and 31.0% respectively, while tramadol prescribing dropped by 48.0%. The most commonly prescribed opioid formulations were immediate release (83.9%), followed by modified release (5.8%) and transdermal (3.2%). There was a modest decrease in the prescribing of immediate-release formulations from 86.0% in 2010 to 82.0% in 2019 (P <0.001). CONCLUSION: Over the 10 years studied, there was a changing pattern of opioid prescribing following colectomy, with a decrease in the proportion of opioid-naive patients prescribed postdischarge opioids.

Chronic Low Back Pain with and without Concomitant Osteoarthritis: A Retrospective, Longitudinal Cohort Study of Patients in England.

Objective: Despite the high prevalence of chronic low back pain (CLBP) and osteoarthritis (OA), few estimates of the economic cost of these conditions in England have been published. The aim of the present analysis was to characterise the economic burden of moderate-to-severe pain associated with CLBP + OA and CLBP alone compared with general population-matched controls without CLBP or OA. The primary objective was to describe the total healthcare resource use (HCRU) and direct healthcare costs associated with the target patient populations. Secondary objectives were to describe treatment patterns and surgical procedures. Methods: This was a retrospective, observational cohort study of patients receiving healthcare indicative of moderate-to-severe chronic pain associated with CLBP, with or without OA. We used linked longitudinal data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD and Hospital Episode Statistics (HES). Patients (cases) were matched 1 : 1 with controls on age, sex, comorbidity burden, GP practice, and HES data availability. Results: The CLBP-alone cohort comprised 13 554 cases with CLBP and 13 554 matched controls; the CLBP + OA cohort comprised 7803 cases with both OA and CLBP and 7803 matched controls. Across all follow-up periods, patients with CLBP alone and those with CLBP + OA had significantly more GP consultations, outpatient attendances, emergency department visits, and inpatient stays than controls (all p < 0.0001). By 36 months after indexing, the mean (SD) per-patient total direct healthcare cost in the CLBP-alone cohort was £5081 (£5905) for cases and £1809 (£4451) for controls (p < 0.0001); in the CLBP + OA cohort, the mean (SD) per-patient total direct healthcare cost was £8819 (£7143) for cases and £2428 (£4280) for controls (p < 0.0001). Conclusion: Moderate-to-severe chronic pain associated with CLBP-with or without OA-has a substantial impact on patients and healthcare providers, leading to higher HCRU and costs versus controls among people with CLBP alone or together with OA.

Frequency and impact of medication reviews for people aged 65 years or above in UK primary care: an observational study using electronic health records.

BACKGROUND: Medication reviews in primary care provide an opportunity to review and discuss the safety and appropriateness of a person's medicines. However, there is limited evidence about access to and the impact of routine medication reviews for older adults in the general population, particularly in the UK. We aimed to quantify the proportion of people aged 65 years and over with a medication review recorded in 2019 and describe changes in the numbers and types of medicines prescribed following a review. METHODS: We used anonymised primary care electronic health records from the UK's Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD GOLD) to define a population of people aged 65 years or over in 2019. We counted people with a medication review record in 2019 and used Cox regression to estimate associations between demographic characteristics, diagnoses, and prescribed medicines and having a medication review. We used linear regression to compare the number of medicines prescribed as repeat prescriptions in the three months before and after a medication review. Specifically, we compared the 'prescription count' - the maximum number of different medicines with overlapping prescriptions people had in each period. RESULTS: Of 591,726 people prescribed one or more medicines at baseline, 305,526 (51.6%) had a recorded medication review in 2019. Living in a care home (hazard ratio 1.51, 95% confidence interval 1.40-1.62), medication review in the previous year (1.83, 1.69-1.98), and baseline prescription count (e.g. 5-9 vs 1 medicine 1.41, 1.37-1.46) were strongly associated with having a medication review in 2019. Overall, the prescription count tended to increase after a review (mean change 0.13 medicines, 95% CI 0.12-0.14). CONCLUSIONS: Although medication reviews were commonly recorded for people aged 65 years or over, there was little change overall in the numbers and types of medicines prescribed following a review. This study did not examine whether the prescriptions were appropriate or other metrics, such as dose or medicine changes within the same class. However, by examining the impact of medication reviews before the introduction of structured medication review requirements in England in 2020, it provides a useful benchmark which these new reviews can be compared with.

Analgesic utilization in people with knee osteoarthritis: A population-based study using primary care data.

PURPOSE: Osteoarthritis (OA) is a chronic painful condition that often affects large joints such as the knee. Treatment guidelines recommend paracetamol, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and opioids. Antidepressants and anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs) are commonly prescribed for chronic noncancer pain conditions including OA, as an off-label use. This study describes analgesic utilization in patients with knee OA at population level using standard pharmaco-epidemiological methods. METHOD: This was a cross-sectional study between 2000 and 2014 using data from the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). The use of antidepressants, AEDs, opioids, NSAIDs, and paracetamol was studied in adults with knee OA using the following measures: annual number of prescriptions, defined daily doses (DDD), oral morphine equivalent dose (OMEQ), and days' supply. RESULTS: In total, there were 8,944,381 prescriptions prescribed for 117,637 patients with knee OA during the 15-year period. There was a steady increase in the prescribing of all drug classes, except for NSAIDs, over the study period. Opioids were the most prevalent class prescribed in every study year. Tramadol was the most commonly prescribed opioid, with the number of DDD increasing from 0.11 to 0.71 DDDs per 1000 registrants in 2000 and 2014, respectively. The largest increase in prescribing was for AEDs, where the number of prescriptions increased from 2 to 11 per 1000 CPRD registrants. CONCLUSION: There was an overall increase in the prescribing of analgesics apart from NSAIDs. Opioids were the most frequently prescribed class; however, the greatest increase in prescribing between 2000 and 2014 was observed in AEDs.

Phenotyping Post-COVID Pain as a Nociceptive, Neuropathic, or Nociplastic Pain Condition.

Pain after an acute Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) condition (post-COVID pain) is becoming a new healthcare emergency. Precision medicine refers to an evidence-based method of grouping patients based on their diagnostic/symptom presentation and then tailoring specific treatments accordingly. Evidence suggests that post-COVID pain can be categorized as nociceptive (i.e., pain attributable to the activation of the peripheral receptive terminals of primary afferent neurons in response to noxious chemical, mechanical, or thermal stimuli), neuropathic (i.e., pain associated with a lesion or disease of the somatosensory nervous system and limited to a "neuroanatomically plausible" distribution of the system), nociplastic (i.e., pain arising from altered nociception despite no clear evidence of actual or threatened tissue damage causing the activation of peripheral nociceptors or evidence for disease or lesion of the somatosensory system causing the pain), or mixed type (when two pain phenotypes co-exist). Each of these pain phenotypes may require a different treatment approach to maximize treatment effectiveness. Accordingly, the ability to classify post-COVID pain patients into one of these phenotypes would likely be critical for producing successful treatment outcomes. The 2021 International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) clinical criteria and grading system provide a framework for classifying pain within a precision pain medicine approach. Here we present data supporting the possibility of grouping patients with post-COVID pain into pain phenotypes, using the 2021 IASP classification criteria, with a specific focus on nociplastic pain, which is probably the primary mechanism involved in post-COVID pain. Nociplastic pain, which is usually associated with comorbid symptomology (e.g., poor sleep quality, fatigue, cognitive-emotional disturbances, etc.) and is considered to be more difficult to treat than other pain types, may require a more nuanced multimodal treatment approach to achieve better treatment outcomes.

Misappropriation of the 1986 WHO analgesic ladder: the pitfalls of labelling opioids as weak or strong.

Opioids have a vital role in alleviating pain from cancer and surgery. Despite good intentions, it is now recognised that the original WHO Cancer Pain Relief guidance from 1986, in which opioids were classified as either weak or strong, has been both inadvertently and purposefully misused, thereby contributing to harm from opioid use and misuse. However, the recommendation in the 2018 update of the WHO analgesic ladder that a combination of a high-potency opioid with simple analgesics is better than alternative analgesics for the maintenance of pain relief is also applicable to patients who require short-term opioids. Furthermore, because potential harm through opioid use and misuse is intrinsic to all opioids, whether weak or strong, we argue that the arbitrary classification of opioids either as weak or strong should be discontinued, as this description is not helpful to either prescribers or consumers.

System-level policies on appropriate opioid use, a multi-stakeholder consensus.

BACKGROUND: This consensus statement was developed because there are concerns about the appropriate use of opioids for acute pain management, with opposing views in the literature. Consensus statement on policies for system-level interventions may help inform organisations such as management structures, government agencies and funding bodies. METHODS: We conducted a multi-stakeholder survey using a modified Delphi methodology focusing on policies, at the system level, rather than at the prescriber or patient level. We aimed to provide consensus statements for current developments and priorities for future developments. RESULTS: Twenty-five experts from a variety of fields with experience in acute pain management were invited to join a review panel, of whom 23 completed a modified Delphi survey of policies designed to improve the safety and quality of opioids prescribing for acute pain in the secondary care setting. Strong agreement, defined as consistent among> 75% of panellists, was observed for ten statements. CONCLUSIONS: Using a modified Delphi study, we found agreement among a multidisciplinary panel, including patient representation, on prioritisation of policies for system-level interventions, to improve governance, pain management, patient/consumers care, safety and engagement.

Collaboration between adult patients and practitioners when making decisions about prescribing opioid medicines for chronic non-cancer pain in primary care: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Long-term opioid therapy (>12 months) is not effective for improving chronic non-cancer pain and function. Where patients are not experiencing pain relief with long-term opioids, the opioid should be tapered and discontinuation considered. Practitioners may find it challenging to tell patients experiencing pain that they are better off reducing or not taking medicines that do not help. This review aims to ascertain what is published about: (1) the interaction and (2) the nature of the relationship between practitioners and patients when prescribing opioids for chronic non-cancer pain in primary care. METHOD: A scoping review of English-language qualitative, quantitative or mixed-method studies in databases including: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, AMED, BNI, CINALH EMCARE and HMIC. The identified papers were reviewed to provide a descriptive summary of the literature. RESULTS: The review identified 20 studies. The studies used a range of methods including interviews, focus groups, audio and video recordings of clinical consultations, telephone survey and data from patient records. One study reported that researchers had engaged with a patient advisory group to guide their research. Patients expressed the importance of being treated as individuals, not being judged and being involved in prescribing decisions. Practitioners expressed difficulty in managing patient expectations and establishing trust. Opioid risk and practitioner suspicion shape opioid prescribing decisions. There is a paucity of literature about how precisely practitioners overcome interactional challenges and implement personalised care in practice. CONCLUSION: The studies in this review ascertain that practitioners and patients often find it challenging to achieve shared decisions in opioid review consultations. Effective communication is essential to achieve good clinical practice. Collaborative research with PPI partners should be aimed at identifying communication practices that support practitioners to achieve shared decisions with patients when reviewing opioids for chronic non-cancer pain.

Utility of unidimensional and functional pain assessment tools in adult postoperative patients: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to appraise the evidence relating to the measurement properties of unidimensional tools to quantify pain after surgery. Furthermore, we wished to identify the tools used to assess interference of pain with functional recovery. METHODS: Four electronic sources (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO) were searched in August 2020. Two reviewers independently screened articles and assessed risk of bias using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. RESULTS: Thirty-one studies with a total of 12 498 participants were included. Most of the studies failed to meet the methodological quality standards required by COSMIN. Studies of unidimensional assessment tools were underpinned by low-quality evidence for reliability (five studies), and responsiveness (seven studies). Convergent validity was the most studied property (13 studies) with moderate to high correlation ranging from 0.5 to 0.9 between unidimensional tools. Interpretability results were available only for the visual analogue scale (seven studies) and numerical rating scale (four studies). Studies on functional assessment tools were scarce; only one study included an 'Objective Pain Score,' a tool assessing pain interference with respiratory function, and it had low-quality for convergent validity. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review challenges the validity and reliability of unidimensional tools in adult patients after surgery. We found no evidence that any one unidimensional tool has superior measurement properties in assessing postoperative pain. In addition, because promoting function is a crucial perioperative goal, psychometric validation studies of functional pain assessment tools are needed to improve pain assessment and management. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020213495.

Association between opioid-related deaths and prescribed opioid dose and psychotropic medicines in England: a case-crossover study.

BACKGROUND: Opioid-overdose deaths are associated with poisoning with prescription and illicit opioids in the USA. In contrast, opioid-related deaths (ORDs) in the UK often involve drugs and substances of misuse, and may not be associated with a high dose of prescribed opioids. This study aimed to investigate the association between prescribed opioid dose and ORDs in UK primary care. METHODS: This case-crossover study used the Clinical Practice Research Datalink and death registration between 2000 and 2015 to identify ORDs. Daily oral morphine equivalent (OMEQ) dose was measured within a 90 day focal window before ORD and three earlier reference windows. Conditional logistic regression models assessed the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) comparing daily OMEQ dose greater than 120 mg in the focal window against the reference windows. RESULTS: Of the 232 ORDs, 62 (26.7%) were not prescribed opioids in the year before death. Of the remaining 170 cases, 50 (29.4%) were never prescribed a daily OMEQ dose greater than 50 mg. Daily OMEQ doses over 120 mg (aOR 2.20; 95% CI: 1.06-4.56), co-prescribing gabapentinoids (aOR 2.32; 95% CI: 1.01-5.33), or some antidepressants (aOR 3.03; 95% CI: 1.02-9.04) significantly increased the risk of ORD. CONCLUSIONS: Daily OMEQ dose greater than 120 mg and the concomitant use of psychotropic medicines were related to ORDs in the UK. Prescribers should cautiously avoid prescribing opioids with a daily OMEQ dose greater than 120 mg day-1 and the combination of opioids and gabapentinoids, even with low opioid doses.

Is Europe also facing an opioid crisis?-A survey of European Pain Federation chapters.

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.

Opioids and the Risk of Fracture: A Self-Controlled Case Series Study in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

Self-controlled study designs can be used to assess the association between exposures and acute outcomes while controlling for important confounders. Using routinely collected health data, a self-controlled case series design was used to investigate the association between opioid use and bone fractures in 2008-2017 among adults registered in the United Kingdom Clinical Practice Research Datalink. The relative incidence of fracture was estimated, comparing periods when these adults were exposed and unexposed to opioids, adjusted for time-varying confounders. Of 539,369 people prescribed opioids, 67,622 sustained fractures and were included in this study. The risk of fracture was significantly increased when the patient was exposed to opioids, with an adjusted incidence rate ratio of 3.93 (95% confidence interval (CI): 3.82, 4.04). Fracture risk was greatest in the first week of starting opioid use (adjusted incidence rate ratio: 7.81, 95% CI: 7.40, 8.25) and declined with increasing duration of use. Restarting opioid use after a gap in exposure significantly increased fracture risk (adjusted incidence rate ratio: 5.05, 95% CI: 4.83, 5.29) when compared with nonuse. These findings highlight the importance of raising awareness of fractures among patients at opioid initiation and demonstrate the utility of self-controlled methods for pharmacoepidemiologic research.

Cost-effectiveness of pain management services for chronic low back pain: a systematic review of published studies.

BACKGROUND: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a highly prevalent condition that has substantial impact on patients, the healthcare system and society. Pain management services (PMS), which aim to address the complex nature of back pain, are recommended in clinical practice guidelines to manage CLBP. Although the effectiveness of such services has been widely investigated in relation to CLBP, the quality of evidence underpinning the use of these services remains moderate. Therefore the aim is to summarize and critically appraise the current evidence for the cost effectiveness of pain management services for managing chronic back pain. METHODS: Electronic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO from their inception to February 2019. Full economic evaluations undertaken from any perspective conducted alongside randomized clinical trials (RCTs) or based on decision analysis models were included. Cochrane Back Review Group (CBRG) risk assessment and the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist were used to assess the methodological quality of eligible studies. RESULTS: Five studies fulfilled eligibility criteria. The interventions varied significantly between studies in terms of the number and types of treatment modalities, intensity and the duration of the program. Interventions were compared with either standard care, which varied according to the country and the setting; or to surgical interventions. Three studies showed that pain management services are cost effective, while two studies showed that these services are not cost effective. In this review, three out of five studies had a high risk of bias based on the design of the randomised controlled trials (RCTs). In addition, there were limitations in the statistical and sensitivity analyses in the economic evaluations. Therefore, the results from these studies need to be interpreted with caution. CONCLUSION: Pain management services may be cost effective for the management of low back pain. However, this systematic review highlights the variability of evidence supporting pain management services for patients with back pain. This is due to the quality of the published studies and the variability of the setting, interventions, comparators and outcomes.

Imaging pain relief in osteoarthritis (IPRO): protocol of a double-blind randomised controlled mechanistic study assessing pain relief and prediction of duloxetine treatment outcome.

INTRODUCTION: Osteoarthritis (OA) pain is a major cause of long-term disability and chronic pain in the adult population. One in five patients does not receive satisfactory pain relief, which reflects the complexity of chronic pain and the current lack of understanding of mechanisms of chronic pain. Recently, duloxetine has demonstrated clinically relevant pain relief, but only in half of treated patients with OA. Here, the aim is to investigate the neural mechanisms of pain relief and neural signatures that may predict treatment response to duloxetine in chronic knee OA pain. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is an ongoing single-centre randomised placebo-controlled mechanistic study (2:1 (placebo) allocation), using a multimodal neuroimaging approach, together with psychophysiological (quantitative sensory testing), genetics and questionnaire assessments. Eighty-one subjects with chronic knee OA pain are planned to power for between-group comparisons (placebo, duloxetine responder and duloxetine non-responder). Participants have a baseline assessment and, following 6 weeks of duloxetine (30 mg for 2 weeks, then 60 mg for 4 weeks), a follow-up evaluation. Brain imaging is performed at 3T with blood-oxygen-level dependent functional MRI at rest and during pin-prick nociceptive stimulation for main outcome assessment; arterial spin labelling and structural imaging (T1-weighted) for secondary outcome assessment. Questionnaires evaluate pain, negative affect, quality of sleep and cognition. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the East Midlands, Nottingham and is being carried out under the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki (64th, 2013) and Good Clinical Practice standards. Results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and at scientific conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02208778).This work was supported by Arthritis Research UK (Grant 18769).

Prevalence and Incidence Trends for Diagnosed Prescription Opioid Use Disorders in the United Kingdom.

INTRODUCTION: The prevalence of prescription opioid use disorders in the US has increased markedly in parallel with increases in opioid prescribing. Whilst an increase in opioid prescribing has also occurred in the UK, it remains unknown if there have been concurrent increases in opioid use disorders. The aim of this study was to examine national trends in the prevalence and incidence of physician-diagnosed opioid use disorders in the UK. METHODS: In a retrospective electronic health care database analysis using data from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), we identified persons receiving a first opioid prescription between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2012. Persons with an opioid use disorder were identified by Read codes assigned by patients' physicians within 6 months following an opioid prescription. We calculated prevalence and incidence rates by dividing the analysis population by the total number of patients exposed (prevalence) or the total patient-years of exposure (incidence) using the 'exact' Clopper-Pearson Binomial method. RESULTS: Our analysis included 714,699 person-years of prescription opioid exposure. The 5-year period prevalence of opioid use disorders was 4.61 (95% CI 4.28-4.96) per 10,000 individuals, or 0.05%. The incidence rate of opioid use disorders was of 6.51 (95% CI 5.93-7.13) patients per 10,000 patient-years exposed. When examined by study year, there was no clear suggestion of a changing trend over time. When stratified by opioid drug, trends in the incidence rate during the study were either stable (i.e., codeine and tramadol), increasing (i.e., morphine) or decreasing (i.e., dihydrocodeine). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that despite the marked increase in overall opioid prescribing in the UK in the past decade, there has not been an increase in the incidence of physician-diagnosed opioid use disorders.

Describing the characteristics, treatment pathways, outcomes, and costs of people with persistent noncancer pain managed by community pain clinics and generating an indicative estimate of cost-effectiveness: feasibility study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) and fibromyalgia (FM), also known as chronic widespread pain (CWP), are highly prevalent chronic painful conditions that have substantial impact on patients, health care systems, and society. Diagnosis is complex and management strategies are associated with various levels of evidence for effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Multidisciplinary pain services have been shown to be effective in some settings and therefore are recommended by clinical practice guidelines as a rational treatment option to manage these patients. Knowing that these services are resource intensive, evidence is needed to demonstrate their cost-effectiveness. This study aims to describe the management of patients with LBP and FM in two community pain clinics to derive an indicative estimate of cost-effectiveness compared with standard practice. METHODS: This is a prospective observational multicenter study, using patient-level data. The data from this study will be combined with modelling of the long-term economic impact of community pain clinics in treating people with LBP and FM. Newly referred patients with LBP and FM who provide written consent will be included. We will collect data on functional disability, pain intensity, quality of life, and health resource utilization. Follow-up data at the 3- and 6-month points will be collected by patient-completed questionnaires and health care contact diaries. Health care resource use from diaries will be compared with patient electronic records to assess the agreement between these recording methods. Patient cohort characteristics, treatment pathways, resource use, and outcomes derived from this study will be integrated in a decision analysis model to assess the cost-effectiveness of community pain clinics compared with standard care. This feasibility study will address key methodological issues such as sample estimates and retention rate to inform the design of a future randomized controlled trial.