Relationships Between Opioid Dosing, Pain Severity, and Disability in a Community-Based Chronic Pain Population: An Exploratory Retrospective Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between opioid dose change, pain severity, and function in patients with chronic pain. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Community interdisciplinary pain management practice. SUBJECTS: A total of 778 patients with chronic pain prescribed opioids for three or more consecutive months between April 1, 2013, and March 1, 2015. METHODS: Changes in opioid dose, pain severity rating, modified Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire score, and opioid risk data were extracted from medical records and analyzed for associations. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-three subjects (31.2%) had an overall dose decrease, 223 (28.7%) had a dose increase, and 312 (40.1%) had no significant change in dose (<20% change). There was a weak negative correlation between change in opioid dose and change in pain severity (r = -0.08, P = 0.04) but no association between change in disability scores and dose change (N = 526, P = 0.13). There was a weak positive correlation between change in pain severity rating and change in disability scores (r = 0.16, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that escalating opioid doses may not necessarily result in clinically significant improvement of pain or disability. Similarly, significant opioid dose reductions may not necessarily result in worsened pain or disability. This exploratory investigation raised questions of possible subgroups of patients who might demonstrate improvement of pain and disability with opioid dose adjustments, and further research should prospectively explore this potential, given the limitations inherent in retrospective analyses. Prescribers should still consider reduction of opioid doses as recommended by current guidelines, in an effort to mitigate the potential risks associated with high-dose treatment.

Opioid Treatment of Migraine: Risk Factors and Behavioral Issues.

Migraine can impact every aspect of a person's functioning. Psychological comorbidities, cognitive constructs, and behavioral responses to pain greatly impact the perception of migraine pain, treatment efficacy and outcome, and overall quality of life and functioning. Current considerations for migraine treatment emphasize the utility of the biopsychosocial model in understanding and treating migraine, noting both the importance of addressing psychological factors such as cognitive beliefs as well as psychiatric comorbidities. The guidelines for migraine treatment implicate opioid therapy as a second or third tier treatment. Guidelines and recommendations for the safe use of opioid medications among patients with chronic pain emphasize the importance of screening prior to prescribing opioid medications. Chronic opioid therapy has been shown to further levels of disability, decrease quality of life, and correlate to psychiatric comorbidities, concerns that are already present in migraine patients. While opioid treatment provides an alternative for persons with contraindications for alternative migraine treatments, it is critical that opioids be used sparingly and exclusively in conjunction with comprehensive assessment and integration of psychological treatment.

The impact of revised DSM-5 criteria on the relative distribution and inter-rater reliability of eating disorder diagnoses in a residential treatment setting.

This study evaluated the relative distribution and inter-rater reliability of revised DSM-5 criteria for eating disorders in a residential treatment program. Consecutive adolescent and young adult females (N=150) admitted to a residential eating disorder treatment facility were assigned both DSM-IV and DSM-5 diagnoses by a clinician (n=14) via routine clinical interview and a research assessor (n=4) via structured interview. We compared the frequency of diagnostic assignments under each taxonomy and by type of assessor. We evaluated concordance between clinician and researcher assignment through inter-rater reliability kappa and percent agreement. Significantly fewer patients received either clinician or researcher diagnoses of a residual eating disorder under DSM-5 (clinician-12.0%; researcher-31.3%) versus DSM-IV (clinician-28.7%; researcher-59.3%), with the majority of reassigned DSM-IV residual cases reclassified as DSM-5 anorexia nervosa. Researcher and clinician diagnoses showed moderate inter-rater reliability under DSM-IV (κ=.48) and DSM-5 (κ=.57), though agreement for specific DSM-5 other specified feeding or eating disorder (OSFED) presentations was poor (κ=.05). DSM-5 revisions were associated with significantly less frequent residual eating disorder diagnoses, but not with reduced inter-rater reliability. Findings support specific dimensions of clinical utility for revised DSM-5 criteria for eating disorders.