Understanding Buprenorphine for Use in Chronic Pain: Expert Opinion.

OBJECTIVE: An expert panel convened to reach a consensus on common misconceptions surrounding buprenorphine, a Schedule III partial µ-opioid receptor agonist indicated for chronic pain. The panel also provided clinical recommendations on the appropriate use of buprenorphine and conversion strategies for switching to buprenorphine from a full µ-opioid receptor agonist for chronic pain management. METHODS: The consensus panel met on March 25, 2019, to discuss relevant literature and provide recommendations on interpreting buprenorphine as a partial µ-opioid receptor agonist, prescribing buprenorphine before some Schedule II, III, or IV options, perioperative/trauma management of patients taking buprenorphine, and converting patients from a full µ-opioid receptor agonist to buprenorphine. RESULTS: The panel recommended that buprenorphine's classification as a partial µ-opioid receptor agonist not be clinically translated to mean partial analgesic efficacy. The panel also recommended that buprenorphine be considered before some Schedule II, III, or IV opioids in patients with a favorable risk/benefit profile on the basis of metabolic factors, abuse potential, and tolerability and that buprenorphine be continued during the perioperative/trauma period. In addition, switching patients from a full µ-opioid receptor agonist to buprenorphine should be considered with no weaning period at starting doses that are based on the previous opioid dose. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations provide a framework for clinicians to address most clinical scenarios regarding buprenorphine use. The overall consensus of the panel was that buprenorphine is a unique Schedule III opioid with favorable pharmacologic properties and a safety profile that may be desirable for chronic pain management.

Shifting quality chronic pain treatment measures from processes to outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Misapplication of the 2016 Centers for Disease Control (CDC) opioid prescribing guidelines has led to overem-phasis of morphineequivalent daily dose (MEDD) as a "metric of success" in chronic noncancer pain (CNCP), resulting in unintentional harms to patients. This article reviews CNCP-related guidelines and patient preferences in order to identify pragmatic, patient-centered metrics to assess treatment response and safety in opioid-treated CNCP. METHODS: We reviewed the clinical (CDC), research (Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials), and implementability-related guidelines (GuideLine Implementability Appraisal), along with relevant patient-identified treatment goals. From these, we summarize a guideline-concordant, patient-centered, implementable set of measures to aid the clinical management of opioid-treated CNCP. RESULTS: We identify metrics across three domains of care: (1) treatment response metrics, which align with the CNCP care goals (pain intensity, pain interference including function and quality of life, and global impression of change); (2) risk assessment ("safety") metrics, eg, MEDD, benzodiazepine-opioid or naloxone-opioid coprescribing, and severity of mental health disorders, which evaluate the risk-benefit profile of opioid therapy; and (3) adherence ("process") metrics, which assess clinician/patient adherence to the guideline-recommended opioid therapy monitoring practices, eg, the presence of completed treatment agreement or urine toxicology testing. All metrics should be informed by implementability principles, eg, be decidable, executable, and measurable. CONCLUSIONS: This article summarizes guideline-concordant, patient-centered, implementable metrics for assessing treatment response, safety, and adherence in opioid-treated CNCP. Regardless of which specific treatment guidelines are applied, this approach could help conceptualize and standardize the collection and reporting of CNCP-relevant metrics, compare them across health systems, and optimize care and treatment outcomes in opioid-treated CNCP.

Opioids Dispensed in the U.S. by Prescribing Specialty, 2012-2017.

INTRODUCTION: Increases in opioid prescribing contributed to the opioid epidemic in the U.S. Subsequent efforts to promote safer use of opioids for treating pain included augmenting prescription drug monitoring programs and prescribing guidelines. The purpose of this study is to characterize the distribution of opioids dispensed in the U.S. by specialty. METHODS: Data from the IQVIA National Prescription Audit were analyzed (in 2019). Prescriptions were standardized to morphine milligram equivalents using the 2018 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention conversion file. The annual number of prescriptions and total dose (morphine milligram equivalents) of opioids dispensed, overall and by specialty (provider type or physician specialty), were calculated for 2012-2017. RESULTS: The number of prescriptions for opioids dispensed declined by 26.6% overall from 2012 to 2017. However, the number of prescriptions dispensed increased for pain medicine (8.8%) and advanced practice providers (nurse practitioners: 34.8%, physician assistants: 5.4%). Similarly, total morphine milligram equivalents for opioids dispensed declined by 28.6% from 2012 to 2017. Despite an increase in the number of prescriptions, total morphine milligram equivalents of opioids dispensed declined by nearly 20% in pain medicine. Higher total morphine milligram equivalents of dispensed opioids were observed in 2017 than in 2012 for advanced practice providers (nurse practitioners: 19.1%, physician assistants: 1.8%), although a decline in morphine milligram equivalents was observed from 2016 to 2017. CONCLUSIONS: During a period in which prescribing interventions were expanded, opioid prescribing declined overall, although not uniformly by specialty.