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.

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.

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.

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.

The risk of all-cause and cause-specific mortality in people prescribed mirtazapine: an active comparator cohort study using electronic health records.

BACKGROUND: Studies have reported an increased risk of mortality among people prescribed mirtazapine compared to other antidepressants. The study aimed to compare all-cause and cause-specific mortality between adults prescribed mirtazapine or other second-line antidepressants. METHODS: This cohort study used English primary care electronic medical records, hospital admission records, and mortality data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), for the period 01 January 2005 to 30 November 2018. It included people aged 18-99 years with depression first prescribed a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) and then prescribed mirtazapine (5081), a different SSRI (15,032), amitriptyline (3905), or venlafaxine (1580). Follow-up was from starting to stopping the second antidepressant, with a 6-month wash-out window, censoring at the end of CPRD follow-up or 30 November 2018. Age-sex standardised rates of all-cause mortality and death due to circulatory system disease, cancer, or respiratory system disease were calculated. Survival analyses were performed, accounting for baseline characteristics using inverse probability of treatment weighting. RESULTS: The cohort contained 25,598 people (median age 41 years). The mirtazapine group had the highest standardised mortality rate, with an additional 7.8 (95% confidence interval (CI) 5.9-9.7) deaths/1000 person-years compared to the SSRI group. Within 2 years of follow-up, the risk of all-cause mortality was statistically significantly higher in the mirtazapine group than in the SSRI group (weighted hazard ratio (HR) 1.62, 95% CI 1.28-2.06). No significant difference was found between the mirtazapine group and the amitriptyline (HR 1.18, 95% CI 0.85-1.63) or venlafaxine (HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.60-2.05) groups. After 2 years, the risk was significantly higher in the mirtazapine group compared to the SSRI (HR 1.51, 95% CI 1.04-2.19), amitriptyline (HR 2.59, 95% CI 1.38-4.86), and venlafaxine (HR 2.35, 95% CI 1.02-5.44) groups. The risks of death due to cancer (HR 1.74, 95% CI 1.06-2.85) and respiratory system disease (HR 1.72, 95% CI 1.07-2.77) were significantly higher in the mirtazapine than in the SSRI group. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality was higher in people prescribed mirtazapine than people prescribed a second SSRI, possibly reflecting residual differences in other risk factors between the groups. Identifying these potential health risks when prescribing mirtazapine may help reduce the risk of mortality.

Association between opioid-related deaths and persistent opioid prescribing in primary care in England: A nested case-control study.

AIM: This study aimed to evaluate the association between opioid-related deaths and persistent opioid utilisation in the United Kingdom (UK). METHODS: This nested case-control study used the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink, linking the Office for National Statistics death registration. Adult opioid users with recorded opioid-related death between 2000 and 2015 were included and matched to four opioid users (controls) based on a disease risk score. Persistent opioid utilisation (opioid prescriptions ≥3 quarters/year and oral morphine equivalent dose ≥4500 mg/year) and psychotropic prescriptions were identified annually during the three patient-years before the date of opioid-related death. Conditional logistic regression was used to assess the association between persistent opioid utilisation and opioid-related death, and the results were reported as adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). RESULTS: Of the 902 149 opioid users, 230 opioid-related deaths (cases) and 920 controls were identified. Persistent opioid utilisation was significantly associated with an increased risk of opioid-related deaths (aOR 1.9, 95% CI 1.2, 2.9) when persistent opioid utilisation was defined by both annual dose and number of quarters. Concurrent prescription of opioids and tricyclic antidepressants (aOR 2.0, 95% CI 1.2, 3.5) or higher dose of benzodiazepine (aOR 6.5, 95% CI 4.0, 10.4) or gabapentinoids (aOR 6.2, 95% CI 2.9, 13.5) were associated with opioid-related death. CONCLUSION: Persistent opioid prescribing and concurrent prescribing of psychotropics were associated with a higher risk of opioid-related death and should be avoided in clinical practice. An evidence-based indicator to monitor the safety of prescribed opioids during opioid deprescribing is needed.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Surgery and opioids: evidence-based expert consensus guidelines on the perioperative use of opioids in the United Kingdom.

There are significant concerns regarding prescription and misuse of prescription opioids in the perioperative period. The Faculty of Pain Medicine at the Royal College of Anaesthetists have produced this evidence-based expert consensus guideline on surgery and opioids along with the Royal College of Surgery, Royal College of Psychiatry, Royal College of Nursing, and the British Pain Society. This expert consensus practice advisory reproduces the Faculty of Pain Medicine guidance. Perioperative stewardship of opioids starts with judicious opioid prescribing in primary and secondary care. Before surgery, it is important to assess risk factors for continued opioid use after surgery and identify those with chronic pain before surgery, some of whom may be taking opioids. A multidisciplinary perioperative care plan that includes a prehabilitation strategy and intraoperative and postoperative care needs to be formulated. This may need the input of a pain specialist. Emphasis is placed on optimum management of pain pre-, intra-, and postoperatively. The use of immediate-release opioids is preferred in the immediate postoperative period. Attention to ensuring a smooth care transition and communication from secondary to primary care for those taking opioids is highlighted. For opioid-naive patients (patients not taking opioids before surgery), no more than 7 days of opioid prescription is recommended. Persistent use of opioid needs a medical evaluation and exclusion of chronic post-surgical pain. The lack of grading of the evidence of each individual recommendation remains a major weakness of this guidance; however, evidence supporting each recommendation has been rigorously reviewed by experts in perioperative pain management.

Hydromorphone for cancer pain.

BACKGROUND: This is an update of the original Cochrane Review first published in Issue 10, 2016. For people with advanced cancer, the prevalence of pain can be as high as 90%. Cancer pain is a distressing symptom that tends to worsen as the disease progresses. Evidence suggests that opioid pharmacotherapy is the most effective of these therapies. Hydromorphone appears to be an alternative opioid analgesic which may help relieve these symptoms. OBJECTIVES: To determine the analgesic efficacy of hydromorphone in relieving cancer pain, as well as the incidence and severity of any adverse events. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and clinical trials registers in November 2020. We applied no language, document type or publication status limitations to the search. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared hydromorphone with placebo, an alternative opioid or another active control, for cancer pain in adults and children. Primary outcomes were participant-reported pain intensity and pain relief; secondary outcomes were specific adverse events, serious adverse events, quality of life, leaving the study early and death. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data. We calculated risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for binary outcomes on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis. We estimated mean difference (MD) between groups and 95% CI for continuous data. We used a random-effects model and assessed risk of bias for all included studies. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created three summary of findings tables. MAIN RESULTS: With four new identified studies, the review includes a total of eight studies (1283 participants, with data for 1181 participants available for analysis), which compared hydromorphone with oxycodone (four studies), morphine (three studies) or fentanyl (one study). All studies included adults with cancer pain, mean age ranged around 53 to 59 years and the proportion of men ranged from 42% to 67.4%. We judged all the studies at high risk of bias overall because they had at least one domain with high risk of bias. We found no studies including children. We did not complete a meta-analysis for the primary outcome of pain intensity due to skewed data and different comparators investigated across the studies (oxycodone, morphine and fentanyl). Comparison 1: hydromorphone compared with placebo We identified no studies comparing hydromorphone with placebo. Comparison 2: hydromorphone compared with oxycodone Participant-reported pain intensity We found no clear evidence of a difference in pain intensity (measured using a visual analogue scale (VAS)) in people treated with hydromorphone compared with those treated with oxycodone, but the evidence is very uncertain (3 RCTs, 381 participants, very low-certainty evidence). Participant-reported pain relief We found no studies reporting participant-reported pain relief. Specific adverse events We found no clear evidence of a difference in nausea (RR 1.13 95% CI 0.74 to 1.73; 3 RCTs, 622 participants), vomiting (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.94; 3 RCTs, 622 participants), dizziness (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.44; 2 RCTs, 441 participants) and constipation (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.19; 622 participants) (all very low-certainty evidence) in people treated with hydromorphone compared with those treated with oxycodone, but the evidence is very uncertain. Quality of life We found no studies reporting quality of life. Comparison 3: hydromorphone compared with morphine Participant-reported pain intensity We found no clear evidence of a difference in pain intensity (measured using the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) or VAS)) in people treated with hydromorphone compared with those treated with morphine, but the evidence is very uncertain (2 RCTs, 433 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Participant-reported pain relief We found no clear evidence of a difference in the number of clinically improved participants, defined by 50% or greater pain relief rate, in the hydromorphone group compared with the morphine group, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.18; 1 RCT, 233 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Specific adverse events At 24 days of treatment, morphine may reduce constipation compared with hydromorphone, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.17; 1 RCT, 200 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We found no clear evidence of a difference in nausea (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.30; 1 RCT, 200 participants), vomiting (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.31; 1 RCT, 200 participants) and dizziness (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.88; 1 RCT, 200 participants) (all very low-certainty evidence) in people treated with hydromorphone compared with those treated with morphine, but the evidence is very uncertain. Quality of life We found no studies reporting quality of life. Comparison 4: hydromorphone compared with fentanyl Participant-reported pain intensity We found no clear evidence of a difference in pain intensity (measured by numerical rating scale (NRS)) at 60 minutes in people treated with hydromorphone compared with those treated with fentanyl, but the evidence is very uncertain (1 RCT, 82 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Participant-reported pain relief We found no studies reporting participant-reported pain relief. Specific adverse events We found no studies reporting specific adverse events. Quality of life We found no studies reporting quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence of the benefits and harms of hydromorphone compared with other analgesics is very uncertain. The studies reported some adverse events, such as nausea, vomiting, dizziness and constipation, but generally there was no clear evidence of a difference between hydromorphone and morphine, oxycodone or fentanyl for this outcome. There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of hydromorphone for cancer pain in comparison with other analgesics on the reported outcomes. Further research with larger sample sizes and more comprehensive outcome data collection is required.

Incidence and prevalence of primary care antidepressant prescribing in children and young people in England, 1998-2017: A population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The use of antidepressants in children and adolescents remains controversial. We examined trends over time and variation in antidepressant prescribing in children and young people in England and whether the drugs prescribed reflected UK licensing and guidelines. METHODS AND FINDINGS: QResearch is a primary care database containing anonymised healthcare records of over 32 million patients from more than 1,500 general practices across the UK. All eligible children and young people aged 5-17 years in 1998-2017 from QResearch were included. Incidence and prevalence rates of antidepressant prescriptions in each year were calculated overall, for 4 antidepressant classes (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors [SSRIs], tricyclic and related antidepressants [TCAs], serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors [SNRIs], and other antidepressants), and for individual drugs. Adjusted trends over time and differences by social deprivation, region, and ethnicity were examined using Poisson regression, taking clustering within general practitioner (GP) practices into account using multilevel modelling. Of the 4.3 million children and young people in the cohort, 49,434 (1.1%) were prescribed antidepressants for the first time during 20 million years of follow-up. Males made up 52.0% of the cohorts, but only 34.1% of those who were first prescribed an antidepressant in the study period. The largest proportion of the cohort was from London (24.4%), and whilst ethnicity information was missing for 39.5% of the cohort, of those with known ethnicity, 75.3% were White. Overall, SSRIs (62.6%) were the most commonly prescribed first antidepressant, followed by TCAs (35.7%). Incident antidepressant prescribing decreased in 5- to 11-year-olds from a peak of 0.9 in females and 1.6 in males in 1999 to less than 0.2 per 1,000 for both sexes in 2017, but incidence rates more than doubled in 12- to 17-year-olds between 2005 and 2017 to 9.7 (females) and 4.2 (males) per 1,000 person-years. The lowest prescription incidence rates were in London, and the highest were in the South East of England (excluding London) for all sex and age groups. Those living in more deprived areas were more likely to be prescribed antidepressants after adjusting for region. The strongest trend was seen in 12- to 17-year-old females (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR] 1.12, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.11-1.13, p < 0.001, per deprivation quintile increase). Prescribing rates were highest in White and lowest in Black adolescents (aIRR 0.32, 95% CI 0.29-0.36, p < 0.001 [females]; aIRR 0.32, 95% CI 0.27-0.38, p < 0.001 [males]). The 5 most commonly prescribed antidepressants were either licensed in the UK for use in children and young people (CYP) or included in national guidelines. Limitations of the study are that, because we did not have access to secondary care prescribing information, we may be underestimating the prevalence and misidentifying the first antidepressant prescription. We could not assess whether antidepressants were dispensed or taken. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis provides evidence of a continuing rise of antidepressant prescribing in adolescents aged 12-17 years since 2005, driven by SSRI prescriptions, but a decrease in children aged 5-11 years. The variation in prescribing by deprivation, region, and ethnicity could represent inequities. Future research should examine whether prescribing trends and variation are due to true differences in need and risk factors, access to diagnosis or treatment, prescribing behaviour, or young people's help-seeking behaviour.

Secondary care specialist visits made by children and young people prescribed antidepressants in primary care: a descriptive study using the QResearch database.

BACKGROUND: Antidepressants may be used to manage a number of conditions in children and young people including depression, anxiety, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. UK guidelines for the treatment of depression in children and young people recommend that antidepressants should only be initiated following assessment and diagnosis by a child and adolescent psychiatrist. The aim of this study was to summarise visits to mental health specialists and indications recorded around the time of antidepressant initiation in children and young people in UK primary care. METHODS: The study used linked English primary care electronic health records and Hospital Episode Statistics secondary care data. The study included 5-17-year-olds first prescribed antidepressants between January 2006 and December 2017. Records of visits to paediatric or psychiatric specialists and potential indications (from a pre-specified list) were extracted. Events were counted if recorded less than 12 months before or 6 months after the first antidepressant prescription. Results were stratified by first antidepressant type (all, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), tricyclic and related antidepressants) and by age group (5-11 years, 12-17 years). RESULTS: In total, 33,031 5-17-year-olds were included. Of these, 12,149 (37%) had a record of visiting a paediatrician or a psychiatric specialist in the specified time window. The majority of recorded visits (7154, 22%) were to paediatricians. Of those prescribed SSRIs, 5463/22,130 (25%) had a record of visiting a child and adolescent psychiatrist. Overall, 17,972 (54%) patients had a record of at least one of the pre-specified indications. Depression was the most frequently recorded indication (12,501, 38%), followed by anxiety (4155, 13%). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest many children and young people are being prescribed antidepressants without the recommended involvement of a relevant specialist. These findings may justify both greater training for GPs in child and adolescent mental health and greater access to specialist care and non-pharmacological treatments. Further research is needed to explore factors that influence how and why GPs prescribe antidepressants to children and young people and the real-world practice barriers to adherence to clinical guidelines.

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.

A 15-year overview of increasing tramadol utilisation and associated mortality and the impact of tramadol classification in the United Kingdom.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to develop hypotheses to explain the increasing tramadol utilisation, evaluate the impact of tramadol classification, and explore the trend between tramadol utilisation and related deaths in the United Kingdom. METHODS: This cross-sectional study used individual patient data, the Clinical Practice Research Datalink from 1993 to 2015, to calculate monthly defined daily dose (DDD)/1000 registrants, monthly prevalence and incidence of tramadol users, annual supply days, and mean daily dose of tramadol. Aggregated-level national statistics and reimbursement data from 2004 to 2015 were also used to quantify annual and monthly tramadol DDD/1000 inhabitants and rate of tramadol-related deaths in England and Wales. Interrupted time-series analysis was used to evaluate the impact of tramadol classification in June 2014. RESULTS: Prevalence of tramadol users increased from 23 to 97.6/10 000 registrants from 2000 to 2015. Both annual dose and annual supply days of existing tramadol users were higher than new users. Level and trend of monthly utilisation (ß2 : -12.9, ß3 : -1.6) and prevalence of tramadol users (ß2 : -6.4, ß3 : -0.37) significantly reduced after classification. Both annual tramadol utilisation and rate of tramadol-related deaths increased before tramadol classification and decreased thereafter. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing tramadol utilisation was influenced by the increase in prevalence and incidence of tramadol users, mean daily dose, and day of supply. Prevalence of tramadol users, tramadol utilisation, and reported deaths declined after tramadol classification. Future studies need to evaluate the influencing factors to ensure the safety of long-term tramadol use.

Interventions for the reduction of prescribed opioid use in chronic non-cancer pain.

BACKGROUND: This is the first update of the original Cochrane Review published in 2013. The conclusions of this review have not changed from the 2013 publication. People with chronic non-cancer pain who are prescribed and are taking opioids can have a history of long-term, high-dose opioid use without effective pain relief. In those without good pain relief, reduction of prescribed opioid dose may be the desired and shared goal of both patient and clinician. Simple, unsupervised reduction of opioid use is clinically challenging, and very difficult to achieve and maintain. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effectiveness of different methods designed to achieve reduction or cessation of prescribed opioid use for the management of chronic non-cancer pain in adults compared to controls. SEARCH METHODS: For this update we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase in January 2017, as well as bibliographies and citation searches of included studies. We also searched one trial registry for ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Included studies had to be randomised controlled trials comparing opioid users receiving an intervention with a control group receiving treatment as usual, active control, or placebo. The aim of the study had to include a treatment goal of dose reduction or cessation of opioid medication. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We sought data relating to prescribed opioid use, adverse events of opioid reduction, pain, and psychological and physical function. We planned to assess the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach, however, due to the heterogeneity of studies, we were unable to combine outcomes in a meta-analysis and therefore we did not assess the evidence with GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: Three studies are new to this update, resulting in five included studies in total (278 participants). Participants were primarily women (mean age 49.63 years, SD = 11.74) with different chronic pain conditions. We judged the studies too heterogeneous to pool data in a meta-analysis, so we have summarised the results from each study qualitatively. The studies included acupuncture, mindfulness, and cognitive behavioral therapy interventions aimed at reducing opioid consumption, misuse of opioids, or maintenance of chronic pain management treatments. We found mixed results from the studies. Three of the five studies reported opioid consumption at post-treatment and follow-up. Two studies that delivered 'Mindfulness-Oriented Recovery Enhancement' or 'Therapeutic Interactive Voice Response' found a significant difference between groups at post-treatment and follow-up in opioid consumption. The remaining study found reduction in opioid consumption in both treatment and control groups, and between-group differences were not significant. Three studies reported adverse events related to the study and two studies did not have study-related adverse events. We also found mixed findings for pain intensity and physical functioning. The interventions did not show between-group differences for psychological functioning across all studies. Overall, the risk of bias was mixed across studies. All studies included sample sizes of fewer than 100 and so we judged all studies as high risk of bias for that category. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence for the efficacy or safety of methods for reducing prescribed opioid use in chronic pain. There is a small number of randomised controlled trials investigating opioid reduction, which means our conclusions are limited regarding the benefit of psychological, pharmacological, or other types of interventions for people with chronic pain trying to reduce their opioid consumption. The findings to date are mixed: there were reductions in opioid consumption after intervention, and often in control groups too.