CDC Clinical Practice Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Pain - United States, 2022.

This guideline provides recommendations for clinicians providing pain care, including those prescribing opioids, for outpatients aged ≥18 years. It updates the CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain - United States, 2016 (MMWR Recomm Rep 2016;65[No. RR-1]:1-49) and includes recommendations for managing acute (duration of <1 month), subacute (duration of 1-3 months), and chronic (duration of >3 months) pain. The recommendations do not apply to pain related to sickle cell disease or cancer or to patients receiving palliative or end-of-life care. The guideline addresses the following four areas: 1) determining whether or not to initiate opioids for pain, 2) selecting opioids and determining opioid dosages, 3) deciding duration of initial opioid prescription and conducting follow-up, and 4) assessing risk and addressing potential harms of opioid use. CDC developed the guideline using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Recommendations are based on systematic reviews of the scientific evidence and reflect considerations of benefits and harms, patient and clinician values and preferences, and resource allocation. CDC obtained input from the Board of Scientific Counselors of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (a federally chartered advisory committee), the public, and peer reviewers. CDC recommends that persons with pain receive appropriate pain treatment, with careful consideration of the benefits and risks of all treatment options in the context of the patient's circumstances. Recommendations should not be applied as inflexible standards of care across patient populations. This clinical practice guideline is intended to improve communication between clinicians and patients about the benefits and risks of pain treatments, including opioid therapy; improve the effectiveness and safety of pain treatment; mitigate pain; improve function and quality of life for patients with pain; and reduce risks associated with opioid pain therapy, including opioid use disorder, overdose, and death.

Dose tapering, increases, and discontinuity among patients on long-term high-dose opioid therapy in the United States, 2017-2019.

BACKGROUND: While reduced exposure to prescription opioids may decrease risks, including overdose and opioid use disorder, abrupt tapering or discontinuation may pose new risks. OBJECTIVES: To examine potentially unsafe tapering and discontinuation among dosage changes in opioid prescriptions dispensed to US patients on high-dose long-term opioid therapy. DESIGN: Longitudinal observational study of adults (≥18 years) on stable high-dose (≥50 oral morphine milligram equivalents [MME] daily dosage) long-term opioid therapy during a 180-day baseline and a 360-day follow-up using all-payer pharmaceutical claims data, 2017-2019. MEASURES: Dosage tapering, increases, and/or stability during follow-up; sustained dosage stability, reductions, or discontinuation at the end of follow-up; and tapering rate. Patients could experience more than one outcome during follow-up. RESULTS: Among 595,078 patients receiving high-dose long-term opioid therapy in the sample, 26.7% experienced sustained dosage reductions and 9.3% experienced discontinuation. Among patients experiencing tapering, 62.0% experienced maximum taper rates between > 10-40% reductions per month and 36.1% experienced monthly rates ≥ 40%. Among patients with mean baseline daily dosages ≥ 150 MME, 47.7% experienced a maximum taper rate ≥ 40% per month. Relative to baseline, 19.7% of patients experiencing tapering had long-term dosage reductions ≥ 40% per month at the end of follow-up. IMPLICATIONS: Dosage changes for patients on high-dose long-term opioid therapy may warrant special attention, particularly over shorter intervals, to understand how potentially sudden tapering and discontinuation can be reduced while emphasizing patient safety and shared decision-making. Rapid discontinuation of opioids can increase risk of adverse outcomes including opioid withdrawal.

CDC clinical practice guideline for prescribing opioids for pain: United States, 2022

This guideline provides recommendations for clinicians providing pain care, including those prescribing opioids, for outpatients aged ≥18 years. It updates the CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain ­ United States, 2016 (MMWR Recomm Rep 2016;65[No. RR-1]:1­49) and includes recommendations for managing acute (duration of <1 month), subacute (duration of 1­3 months), and chronic (duration of >3 months) pain. The recommendations do not apply to pain related to sickle cell disease or cancer or to patients receiving palliative or end-of-life care. The guideline addresses the following four areas: 1) determining whether or not to initiate opioids for pain, 2) selecting opioids and determining opioid dosages, 3) deciding duration of initial opioid prescription and conducting follow-up, and 4) assessing risk and addressing potential harms of opioid use. CDC developed the guideline using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Recommendations are based on systematic reviews of the scientific evidence and reflect considerations of benefits and harms, patient and clinician values and preferences, and resource allocation. CDC obtained input from the Board of Scientific Counselors of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (a federally chartered advisory committee), the public, and peer reviewers. CDC recommends that persons with pain receive appropriate pain treatment, with careful consideration of the benefits and risks of all treatment options in the context of the patient's circumstances. Recommendations should not be applied as inflexible standards of care across patient populations. This clinical practice guideline is intended to improve communication between clinicians and patients about the benefits and risks of pain treatments, including opioid therapy; improve the effectiveness and safety of pain treatment; mitigate pain; improve function and quality of life for patients with pain; and reduce risks associated with opioid pain therapy, including opioid use disorder, overdose, and death.

Real-Time CDC Consultation during the COVID-19 Pandemic-United States, March-July, 2020.

CONTEXT: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Centers for Disease Prevention and Control (CDC) clinicians provided real-time telephone consultation to healthcare providers, public health practitioners, and health department personnel. OBJECTIVE: To describe the demographic and public health characteristics of inquiries, trends, and correlation of inquiries with national COVID-19 case reports. We summarize the results of real-time CDC clinician consultation service provided during 11 March to 31 July 2020 to understand the impact and utility of this service by CDC for the COVID-19 pandemic emergency response and for future outbreak responses. DESIGN: Clinicians documented inquiries received including information about the call source, population for which guidance was sought, and a detailed description of the inquiry and resolution. Descriptive analyses were conducted, with a focus on characteristics of callers as well as public health and clinical content of inquiries. SETTING: Real-time telephone consultations with CDC Clinicians in Atlanta, GA. PARTICIPANTS: Health care providers and public health professionals who called CDC with COVID-19 related inquiries from throughout the United States. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Characteristics of inquiries including topic of inquiry, inquiry population, resolution, and demographic information. RESULTS: A total of 3154 COVID-19 related telephone inquiries were answered in real-time. More than half (62.0%) of inquiries came from frontline healthcare providers and clinical sites, followed by 14.1% from state and local health departments. The majority of inquiries focused on issues involving healthcare workers (27.7%) and interpretation or application of CDC's COVID-19 guidance (44%). CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a substantial number of inquiries to CDC, with the large majority originating from the frontline clinical and public health workforce. Analysis of inquiries suggests that the ongoing focus on refining COVID-19 guidance documents is warranted, which facilitates bidirectional feedback between the public, medical professionals, and public health authorities.

Indication-Specific Opioid Prescribing for US Patients With Medicaid or Private Insurance, 2017.

Importance: Although opioids can be effective medications in certain situations, they are associated with harms, including opioid use disorder and overdose. Studies have revealed unexplained prescribing variation and prescribing mismatched with patient-reported pain for many indications. Objective: To summarize opioid prescribing frequency, dosages, and durations, stratified across numerous painful medical indications. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cross-sectional analysis of 2017 US administrative claims data among outpatient clinical settings, including postsurgical discharge. Participants had any of 41 different indications associated with nonsurgical acute or chronic pain or postsurgical pain or pain associated with sickle cell disease or active cancer and were enrolled in either private insurance (including Medicare Advantage) in the OptumLabs Data Warehouse data set (n = 18 016 259) or Medicaid in the IBM MarketScan Multi-State Medicaid Database (n = 11 453 392). OptumLabs data were analyzed from October 2018 to March 2019; MarketScan data were analyzed from January to April 2019. Exposures: Nonsurgical acute or chronic pain or postsurgical pain; pain related to sickle cell disease or active cancer. Main Outcomes and Measures: Indication-specific opioid prescribing rates; days' supply per prescription; daily opioid dosage in morphine milligram equivalents; and for chronic pain indications, the number of opioid prescriptions. Results: During the study period, of 18 016 259 eligible patients with private insurance, the mean (95% CI) age was 42.7 (42.7-42.7) years, and 50.3% were female; of 11 453 392 eligible Medicaid enrollees, the mean (95% CI) age was 20.4 (20.4-20.4) years, and 56.1% were female. A pain-related indication under study occurred in at least 1 visit among 6 380 694 patients with private insurance (35.4%) and 3 169 831 Medicaid enrollees (27.7%); 2 270 596 (35.6% of 6 380 694) privately insured patients and 1 126 508 (35.5% of 3 169 831) Medicaid enrollees had 1 or more opioid prescriptions. Nonsurgical acute pain opioid prescribing rates were lowest for acute migraines (privately insured, 4.6% of visits; Medicaid, 6.6%) and highest for rib fractures (privately insured, 44.8% of visits; Medicaid, 56.3%), with variable days' supply but similar daily dosage across most indications. Opioid prescribing for a given chronic pain indication varied depending on a patient's opioid use history. Days' supply for postoperative prescriptions was longest for combined spinal decompression and fusion (privately insured, 9.5 days [95% CI, 9.4-9.7 days]) or spinal fusion (Medicaid, 9.1 days [95% CI, 8.9-9.2 days]) and was shortest for vaginal delivery (privately insured, 4.1 days [95% CI, 4.1-4.1 days] vs Medicaid, 4.2 days [95% CI, 4.2-4.2 days]). Conclusions and Relevance: Indication-specific opioid prescribing rates were not always aligned with existing guidelines. Potential inconsistencies between prescribing practice and clinical recommendations, such as for acute and chronic back pain, highlight opportunities to enhance pain management and patient safety.

Bridging the Gap Among Clinical Practice Guidelines for Pain Management in Cancer and Sickle Cell Disease.

Opioids are a critical component of pain relief strategies for the management of patients with cancer and sickle cell disease. The escalation of opioid addiction and overdose in the United States has led to increased scrutiny of opioid prescribing practices. Multiple reports have revealed that regulatory and coverage policies, intended to curb inappropriate opioid use, have created significant barriers for many patients. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and American Society of Clinical Oncology each publish clinical practice guidelines for the management of chronic pain. A recent JAMA Oncology article highlighted perceived variability in recommendations among these guidelines. In response, leadership from guideline organizations, government representatives, and authors of the original article met to discuss challenges and solutions. The meeting featured remarks by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, presentations on each clinical practice guideline, an overview of the pain management needs of patients with sickle cell disease, an overview of perceived differences among guidelines, and a discussion of differences and commonalities among the guidelines. The meeting revealed that although each guideline varies in the intended patient population, target audience, and methodology, there is no disagreement among recommendations when applied to the appropriate patient and clinical situation. It was determined that clarification and education are needed regarding the intent, patient population, and scope of each clinical practice guideline, rather than harmonization of guideline recommendations. Clinical practice guidelines can serve as a resource for policymakers and payers to inform policy and coverage determinations.

Bridging the Gap Among Clinical Practice Guidelines for Pain Management in Cancer and Sickle Cell Disease.

Opioids are a critical component of pain relief strategies for the management of patients with cancer and sickle cell disease. The escalation of opioid addiction and overdose in the United States has led to increased scrutiny of opioid prescribing practices. Multiple reports have revealed that regulatory and coverage policies, intended to curb inappropriate opioid use, have created significant barriers for many patients. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and ASCO each publish clinical practice guidelines for the management of chronic pain. A recent JAMA Oncology article highlighted perceived variability in recommendations among these guidelines. In response, leadership from guideline organizations, government representatives, and authors of the original article met to discuss challenges and solutions. The meeting featured remarks by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, presentations on each clinical practice guideline, an overview of the pain management needs of patients with sickle cell disease, an overview of perceived differences among guidelines, and a discussion of differences and commonalities among the guidelines. The meeting revealed that although each guideline varies in the intended patient population, target audience, and methodology, there is no disagreement among recommendations when applied to the appropriate patient and clinical situation. It was determined that clarification and education are needed regarding the intent, patient population, and scope of each clinical practice guideline, rather than harmonization of guideline recommendations. Clinical practice guidelines can serve as a resource for policymakers and payers to inform policy and coverage determinations.

Emergency Department Visits Attributed to Adverse Events Involving Benzodiazepines, 2016-2017.

INTRODUCTION: Characterization of emergency department visits attributed to adverse events involving benzodiazepines can be used to guide preventive interventions. This study describes U.S. emergency department visits attributed to adverse events involving benzodiazepines by intent, patient characteristics, and clinical manifestations. METHODS: Data from the 2016-2017 National Electronic Injury Surveillance System-Cooperative Adverse Drug Event Surveillance project were analyzed in 2019 to calculate estimated annual numbers and rates of emergency department visits attributed to adverse events involving benzodiazepines, by intent of benzodiazepine use. RESULTS: Based on 6,148 cases, there were an estimated 212,770 (95% CI=167,163, 258,377) emergency department visits annually attributed to adverse events involving benzodiazepines. More than half were visits involving nonmedical use of benzodiazepines (119,008; 55.9%, 95% CI=50.0%, 61.9%), one third were visits involving self-harm with benzodiazepines (64,721; 30.4%, 95% CI=25.6%, 35.2%), and a smaller proportion of visits involved therapeutic use of benzodiazepines (29,041; 13.6%, 95% CI=11.4%, 15.9%). The estimated population rate of visits was highest for nonmedical use of benzodiazepines by patients aged 15-34 years (7.4 visits per 10,000 people). Among visits involving nonmedical use of benzodiazepines, 54.8% (95% CI=49.8%, 59.8%) were made by patients aged 15-34 years, 82.7% (95% CI=80.1%, 85.4%) involved concurrent use of other substances (illicit drugs, alcohol, prescription opioids, and/or other pharmaceuticals), and 24.2% (95% CI=17.7%, 30.6%) involved cardiorespiratory arrest or unresponsiveness. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support recommendations to assess for and address substance use disorder before initiating or continuing benzodiazepines and reinforce the need for validated self-harm risk assessment tools for clinicians.

US Emergency Department Visits for Acute Harms From Prescription Opioid Use, 2016-2017.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the number of US emergency department visits for prescription opioid harms by patient characteristics, intent, clinical manifestations, and active ingredient. METHODS: We used data from medical record-based surveillance from a nationally representative 60-hospital sample. RESULTS: Based on 7769 cases, there were 267 020 estimated emergency department visits annually (95% confidence interval [CI] = 209 833, 324 206) for prescription opioid harms from 2016 to 2017. Nearly half of visits (47.6%; 95% CI = 40.8%, 54.4%) were attributable to nonmedical opioid use, 38.9% (95% CI = 32.9%, 44.8%) to therapeutic use, and 13.5% (95% CI = 11.0%, 16.0%) to self-harm. Co-implication with other pharmaceuticals and concurrent illicit drug and alcohol use were common; prescription opioids alone were implicated in 31.5% (95% CI = 27.2%, 35.8%) of nonmedical use visits and 19.7% (95% CI = 15.7%, 23.7%) of self-harm visits. Unresponsiveness or cardiorespiratory failure (30.0%) and altered mental status (35.7%) were common in nonmedical use visits. Gastrointestinal effects (30.4%) were common in therapeutic use visits. Oxycodone was implicated in more than one third of visits across intents. CONCLUSIONS: Morbidity data can help target interventions, such as dispensing naloxone to family and friends of those with serious overdose, and screening and treatment of substance use disorder when opioids are prescribed long-term.

U.S. Emergency Department Visits Resulting From Nonmedical Use of Pharmaceuticals, 2016.

INTRODUCTION: National data on morbidity from nonmedical use of pharmaceuticals are limited. This study used nationally representative, public health surveillance data to characterize U.S. emergency department visits for acute harms from nonmedical use of pharmaceuticals and to guide prevention efforts. METHODS: Data collected in 2016 from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System-Cooperative Adverse Drug Event Surveillance project were analyzed in 2018 to calculate national estimates of emergency department visits for harms from nonmedical use of pharmaceuticals. RESULTS: Based on 5,130 surveillance cases, there were an estimated 358,247 emergency department visits (95% CI=280,675, 435,819) in 2016 for harms from nonmedical use of pharmaceuticals and 41.1% resulted in hospitalization (95% CI=32.3%, 49.8%). One half (50.9%, 95% CI=46.6%, 55.3%) of estimated visits involved patients aged ≤34 years; more than one half of estimated visits also involved non-pharmaceutical substances (52.9%, 95% CI=49.7%, 56.1%), including illicit drugs in 34.1% (95% CI=30.9%, 37.2%) and alcohol in 21.8% (95% CI=19.8%, 23.9%). Overall, benzodiazepines were implicated in 46.9% (95% CI=42.5%, 51.2%) of estimated emergency department visits for nonmedical use of pharmaceuticals but were the only substance implicated in just 6.5% (95% CI=5.1%, 7.9%). Prescription opioids were implicated in 36.2% (95% CI=30.8%, 41.7%) of estimated emergency department visits and were the only substance implicated in 11.3% (95% CI=8.6%, 14.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Although prescription opioids or benzodiazepines are frequently implicated in emergency department visits for nonmedical use, because other substances and additional pharmaceuticals are most often involved, prescribing clinicians should consider implementing specific screening to address polysubstance use and, when warranted, treatment interventions.