Non-cancer Pain Research Articles

Analgesic consumption in a large sample of people in musculoskeletal rehabilitation: A descriptive study

BackgroundConsumption of opioids is increasing worldwide in people with chronic non-cancer pain, although their effectiveness is debated. ObjectivesThe aim of the current study was to evaluate analgesic consumption and its association with different variables (demographic variables, pain, anxiety/depression, catastrophism, and kinesiophobia), in the field of musculoskeletal rehabilitation, where no data are available. MethodsThis was a retrospective study over a period of 8 years on people hospitalised for rehabilitation after injury. Participants were classified into 3 categories: no analgesics (NA), non-opioid analgesics (NOA), and opioid analgesics (OPA). ANOVA or chi-squared tests were used to compare the 3 groups. ResultsA total of 4,350 people (84% men; mean [SD] age, 44 [11] years) were included. In total, 20% were taking OPA, 40% NOA and 40% NA. In the OPA group, tramadol was mainly used, and the morphine equivalent median dose was 8.3 mg/day. In the NOA group, paracetamol and ibuprofen were mostly used. Symptoms increased progressively across the 3 groups (NA/NOA/OPA), with increased levels of pain severity/interference, anxiety/depression and catastrophizing, and a higher prevalence of neuropathic pain in the OPA group versus the others. ConclusionsThese results are consistent with those found in groups of people with chronic pain taking larger doses of opioids and following opioid reduction or cessation programs. Opioid prescription did not increase over the 8 years, which was reassuring. These factors are important to emphasise because they can be modified in the rehabilitation setting with interdisciplinary management. RegistrationOur database was registered on Mendeley Data.

Acceptability of a proposed practice pharmacist-led review for opioid-treated patients with persistent pain: A qualitative study to inform intervention development

Introduction Regular review of patients prescribed opioids for persistent non-cancer pain (PCNP) is recommended but not routinely undertaken. The PROMPPT (Proactive clinical Review of patients taking Opioid Medicines long-term for persistent Pain led by clinical Pharmacists in primary care Teams) research programme aims to develop and test a pharmacist-led pain review (PROMPPT) to reduce inappropriate opioid use for persistent pain in primary care. This study explored the acceptability of the proposed PROMPPT review to inform early intervention development. Methods Interviews ( n = 15) and an online discussion forum ( n = 31) with patients prescribed opioids for PCNP and interviews with pharmacists ( n = 13), explored acceptability of a proposed PROMPPT review. A prototype PROMPPT review was then tested and refined through 3 iterative cycles of in-practice testing (IPT) ( n = 3 practices, n = 3 practice pharmacists, n = 13 patients). Drawing on the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA), a framework was generated (including a priori TFA constructs) allowing for deductive and inductive thematic analysis to identify aspects of prospective and experienced acceptability. Results Patients felt uncertain about practice pharmacists delivering the proposed PROMPPT review leading to development of content for the invitation letter for IPT (introducing the pharmacist and outlining the aim of the review). After IPT, patients felt that pharmacists were suited to the role as they were knowledgeable and qualified. Pharmacists felt that the proposed reviews would be challenging. Although challenges were experienced during delivery of PROMPPT reviews, pharmacists found that they became easier to deliver with time, practise and experience. Recommendations for optimisations after IPT included development of the training to include examples of challenging consultations. Conclusions Uptake of new healthcare interventions is influenced by perceptions of acceptability. Exploring prospective and experienced acceptability at multiple time points during early intervention development, led to mini-optimisations of the prototype PROMPPT review ahead of a non-randomised feasibility study.

Opioid characteristics and nonopioid interventions associated with successful opioid taper in patients with chronic noncancer pain.

Current research indicates that tapering opioids may improve pain and function in patients with chronic noncancer pain. However, gaps in the literature remain regarding the choice of opioid and nonopioid interventions to support a successful taper. This study used an Australian primary care data set to identify a cohort of patients on long-term opioid therapy commencing opioid taper between January 2016 and September 2019. Using logistic regression analysis, we compared key clinical factors associated with differing taper outcomes. Of a total of 3371 patients who commenced taper, 1068 (31.7%) completed taper within 12 months. In the 3 months after commencement of taper, compared with those who did not complete taper, patients who successfully completed opioid taper were less likely to be prescribed buprenorphine (odds ratio [OR] 0.691; 95% CI: 0.530-0.901), fentanyl (OR, 0.429; 95% CI: 0.295-0.622), and long-acting (LA) opioids, including methadone (OR, 0.349; 95% CI: 0.157-0.774), oxycodone-naloxone (OR, 0.521; 95% CI: 0.407-0.669), and LA tapentadol (OR, 0.645; 95% CI: 0.461-0.902), but more likely to be prescribed codeine (OR, 1.308; 95% CI: 1.036-1.652). Compared with those who did not complete taper, patients who successfully tapered were less likely to be prescribed any formulations of oxycodone (short-acting [SA]: OR, 0.533; 95% CI: 0.422-0.672, LA: OR, 0.356; 95% CI: 0.240-0.530) and tramadol (SA: OR, 0.370; 95% CI: 0.218-0.628, LA: OR, 0.317; 95% CI: 0.234-0.428). The type of opioid prescribed in the months after commencement of taper seems to influence the taper outcomes. These findings may inform prospective studies on opioid taper.

Prevalence of chronic non-cancer pain among military veterans: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

IntroductionChronic non-cancer pain is common among military veterans; however, the prevalence is uncertain. This information gap complicates policy decisions and resource planning to ensure veterans have access to healthcare services...

Design of a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial comparing the effectiveness of shared decision making versus motivational interviewing plus cognitive behavioral therapy for voluntary opioid tapering: The INSPIRE study protocol

BackgroundThis paper describes the design and protocol of a pragmatic, randomized trial to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of shared decision making versus motivational interviewing plus cognitive behavioral therapy for chronic pain for the voluntary tapering of opioid dose in adults with chronic noncancer pain. Integrated Services for Pain: Interventions to Reduce Pain Effectively (INSPIRE) is a multicenter, randomized trial conducted at three academic health centers in the southeastern United States. Participants are adults receiving long-term opioid therapy of at least 20 morphine milligram equivalents daily for chronic noncancer pain. MethodsParticipants were randomized to either the shared decision-making intervention or the motivational interviewing session and cognitive behavioral therapy for chronic pain intervention. All participants also received guideline-concordant care supporting opioid pharmacotherapy. The primary outcome was change from baseline in average daily prescribed opioid dose at 12 months, using prescribing data from electronic health records. Secondary outcomes were Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Pain Interference and Physical Function at 12 months. ConclusionThis trial evaluates the comparative effectiveness of shared decision making versus motivational interviewing plus cognitive behavioral therapy for chronic pain for the voluntary tapering of opioid dose in adults with chronic noncancer pain. Results from this study can guide clinicians, researchers, and policymakers as they seek to reduce opioid prescribing and improve management of chronic pain. Clinical trials registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03454555 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT03454555). Participant enrollment began on June 26, 2019.

Managing Non-Cancer Chronic Pain in Frail Older Adults: A Pilot Study Based on a Multidisciplinary Approach.

Considering the multidimensionality of chronic pain, it is crucial to develop comprehensive strategies for its effective management. However, establishing well-defined, evidence-based guidelines for such approaches remains challenging. To overcome this, we present the finding from a 4-month intervention to enhance the management of non-cancer chronic pain in older adults with pre-frailty and frailty. The intervention's core elements comprised a multidisciplinary individualized plan, a case manager, and patient education. This pilot study involved 22 participants (≥65 years). It assessed changes in pain frequency and intensity (pain scale), frailty (Fried frailty phenotype criteria), and medication adherence (Brief Adherence Rating Scale) before and after the 4-month intervention. The results were encouraging: pain frequency and intensity and frailty score tended to decrease, and medication adherence showed significant improvement. This preliminary small-scale pilot study provides a foundation for further research and for exploring the potential scalability of this multidisciplinary patient-centred intervention.

Psychosocial safety climate (PSC) and working conditions, predictors of mental health and antidepressant and opioid use in Australia: a study protocol for longitudinal data linkage

IntroductionWork-related stress is a social determinant of global health that represents a huge cost to workers’ health and reduces work performance. In Australia, mental well-being is a pressing national issue—with...

Digital Behavioural Interventions to Reduce Opioid Use in Chronic Non-Cancer Pain Patients: A Systematic Review

Abstract Introduction Opioid medications have become increasingly prevalent in the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain1. This increase in opioid usage has given rise to the ‘Opioid Crisis’ which refers to the significant increase in overdose, addiction, and deaths in the USA and Canada particularly2. Furthermore, the World Health Organisation has declared there to have been approximately 0.5 million deaths in relation to drug use worldwide, with more than 70% of those deaths related to opioids3. Advances in technology have paved the way for the use of digital behavioural interventions, such as mobile applications, virtual reality, and online therapies, to potentially mitigate opioid use in patients suffering from chronic non-cancer pain. These interventions aim to assist individuals in modifying health behaviours to promote overall well-being and may serve as a preventive measure against the detrimental effects of long-term opioid use. Aim This systematic review aimed to evaluate the current evidence regarding the effectiveness of digital behavioural interventions in reducing opioid use among chronic non-cancer pain patients. Methods A comprehensive search was conducted in three electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science) using specific search terms. Primary outcomes focused on opioid usage measurements, while secondary outcomes pertained to pain measurements. Eligible studies included adult patients with chronic non-cancer pain (excluding cancer/palliative patients) who received opioid prescriptions and engaged in digital behavioural interventions in any setting. Two researchers double-screened eligible studies based on titles and abstracts, excluding duplicates and those not meeting the eligibility criteria. Data extraction was performed, and study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (double-screened). Ethical approval was not required as this study was a systematic review. Results Out of 30,388 articles identified, six studies conducted in the USA met the inclusion criteria. Risk of bias assessment revealed one study with a low risk, two with some concerns, and the majority with a high risk of bias. The publication dates of the identified papers ranged from 2016 to 2021. There was an overall participant population of 605. The interventions included virtual reality, mobile health applications, web-based cognitive-behavioural therapy, guided audio-visual relaxation, and an electronic health toolkit. Two studies reported a specific reduction in opioid use, while three studies did not provide direct measurements for opioid use. However, these studies indicated a reduction in opioid analgesic usage by reporting either over-the-counter analgesic measures or a Current Opioid Misuse Measure score. Discussion/Conclusion This systematic review was conducted in response to the need for updated pain management strategies. The literature suggests that digital behavioural interventions hold promise for reducing opioid use among chronic non-cancer pain patients. However, due to limitations in the included studies, such as sample size, heterogeneity, and potential bias, further research is needed to fully understand their effectiveness. Future studies should focus on optimising the design and delivery of the interventions tailored to this patient population. Continued research in this area has the potential to address the societal burden of opioid misuse and improve patients' quality of life.

Assessing Relapse in Patients with Opioid-Use Disorder and Chronic Non-Cancer Pain

BackgroundThe opioid crisis in the United States is of public health significance, with an estimated 128 opioid overdose-related deaths per day in 2018 and a relapse rate of 90% or higher. This crisis persists despite the adoption of Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT), therefore, there is a need to prevent relapse. AimsThe purpose of this study was to determine risk factors for relapse in patients admitted with opioid use disorder (OUD) at a local addiction treatment center in Western New York, from 2018-2020. The aims were to compare rates of relapse to illicit substances between patients with OUD and chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) to those with OUD alone; and to determine factors that predict relapse. MethodA retrospective chart review design was used. Electronic health records of 75 patients with OUD were reviewed. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze demographic data; and a χ2 test was performed to compare relapse rates in patients with OUD plus CNCP to those with OUP alone. Binary logistic regression was performed to ascertain the effects of psychiatric comorbidities on relapse. ResultsThere was no statistically significant difference between demographic subgroups. No group differences were observed in rates of relapse; however, patients with CNCP were more likely to relapse (p = .06). Psychiatric comorbidities did not predict relapse (p > .05). ConclusionsAdditional research is needed to ascertain other factors predicting relapse in patients with OUD in addiction treatment centers.

Benefits, Harms, and Stakeholder Perspectives Regarding Opioid Therapy for Pain in Individuals With Metastatic Cancer: Protocol for a Descriptive Cohort Study.

Opioids are a key component of pain management among patients with metastatic cancer pain. However, the evidence base available to guide opioid-related decision-making in individuals with advanced cancer is limited. Patients with advanced cancer or cancer that is unlikely to be cured frequently experience pain. Opioids are a key component of pain management among patients with metastatic cancer pain. Many individuals with advanced cancer are now living long enough to experience opioid-related harm. Emerging evidence from chronic noncancer pain literature suggests that longer-term opioid therapy may have limited benefits for pain and function, and opioid-related harms are also a major concern. However, whether these benefits and harms of opioids apply to patients with cancer-related pain is unknown. This manuscript outlines the protocol for the "Opioid Therapy for Pain in Individuals With Metastatic Cancer: The Benefits, Harms, and Stakeholder Perspectives (BEST) Study." The study aims to better understand opioid decision-making in patients with advanced cancer, along with opioid benefits and harms, through prospective examination of patients' pain experiences and opioid side effects and understanding the decision-making by patients, care partners, and clinicians. This is a multicenter, prospective cohort study that aims to enroll 630 patients with advanced cancer, 20 care partners, and 20 clinicians (670 total participants). Patient participants must have an advanced solid cancer diagnosis, defined by the American Cancer Society as cancer that is unlikely to be cured. We will recruit patient participants within 12 weeks after diagnosis so that we can understand opioid benefits, harms, and perspectives on opioid decision-making throughout the course of their advanced cancer (up to 2 years). We will also specifically elicit information regarding long-term opioid use (ie, opioids for ≥90 consecutive days) and exclude patients on long-term opioid therapy before an advanced cancer diagnosis. Lived-experience perspectives related to opioid use in those with advanced cancer will be captured by qualitative interviews with a subset of patients, clinicians, and care partners. Our data collection will be grounded in a behavioral decision research approach that will allow us to develop future interventions to inform opioid-related decision-making for patients with metastatic cancer. Data collection began in October 2022 and is anticipated to end by November 2024. Upon successful execution of our study protocol, we anticipate the development of a comprehensive evidence base on opioid therapy in individuals with advanced cancer guided by the behavioral decision research framework. The information gained from this study will be used to guide interventions to facilitate opioid decisions among patients, clinicians, and care partners. Given the limited evidence base about opioid therapy in people with cancer, we envision this study will have significant real-world implications for cancer-related pain management and opioid-related clinical decision-making. DERR1-10.2196/54953.

Does opioid therapy enhance quality of life in patients suffering from chronic non-malignant pain? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and objective Chronic pain is associated with a poor health-related quality of life (HRQL). Whereas the prescription rate of opioids increased during the last decades, their use in chronic non-malignant pain remains unclear. However, there is currently no clinical consensus or evidence-based guidelines that consider the long-term effects of opioid therapy on HRQL in patients with chronic non-cancer pain. This systematic review aims to address the question of whether opioid therapy improves HRQL in patients with chronic non-malignant pain and provide some guidance to practitioners. Databases and data treatment PubMed, EMBASE and CENTRAL were searched in June 2020 for double-blind, randomized trials (RCTs), comparing opioid therapy to placebo and assessed a HRQL questionnaire. The review comprises a qualitative vote counting approach and a meta-analysis of the Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), EQ-5D questionnaire and the pain interference scale of the Brief pain inventory (BPI). Results 35 RCTs were included, of which the majority reported a positive effect of opioids for the EQ-5D, the BPI and the physical component score (PCS) of the SF-36 compared to placebo. The meta-analysis of the PCS showed a mean difference of 1.82 [confidence interval: 1.32, 2.32], the meta-analysis of the EQ-5D proved a significant advantage of 0.06 [0.00, 0.12]. In the qualitative analysis of the mental component score (MCS) of the SF-36, no positive or negative trend was seen. No significant differences were seen in the MCS (MD: 0.65 [-0.43, 1.73]). A slightly higher premature dropout rate was found in the opioid group (risk difference: 0.04 [0.00, 0.07], p = .07). The body of evidence is graded as low to medium. Conclusion Opioids have a statistically significant, but small and clinical not relevant effect on the physical dimensions of HRQL, whereas there is no effect on mental dimensions of HRQL in patients with chronic non-malignant pain during the initial months of treatment. In clinical practice, opioid prescriptions for chronic non-cancer pain should be individually assessed as their broad efficacy in improving quality of life is not confirmed. The duration of opioid treatment should be determined carefully, as this review primarily focuses on the initial months of therapy.

Factors that impact initiation of pain management agreements for patients on chronic opioid therapy.

This analysis seeks to understand variables within our institution that impact pain management agreement (PMA) utilization for chronic noncancer pain (CNCP). Retrospective chart review. Public academic medical center. Adults prescribed an opioid for CNCP between July 2020 and October 2020. We assessed the association between patient demographics, prescription factors, and prescriber factors with the presence of a PMA. Unadjusted rates and chi-square tests were generated for each predictor. Additionally, we performed two multivariable logistic regressions: one including all variables and another utilizing a stepwise forward variable selection process to further understand the relationships between predictors and the presence of a PMA. 49.7 percent of patients who received an opioid for CNCP had a PMA on file. One significant predictor of the presence of PMA was prescriber specialty with anesthesia/pain medicine, demonstrating 88 percent compliance. Compared to anesthesia/pain medicine, patients receiving opioids from internal medicine had an odds ratio (OR) of 0.155 (95 percent confidence interval (CI), 0.109-0.220), while patients receiving opioids from family medicine had an OR of 0.122 (95 percent CI, 0.090-0.167). Additionally, patients who received schedule II opioids (as opposed to schedule III/IV opioids), patients with multiple opioid fills in 3 months, middle aged patients, and Black patients were more likely to have a PMA. Compliance with PMA within our institution was only 49 percent despite an existing state law mandating use. Our analysis suggests quality improvement interventions should target patients on schedule III/IV opioids who receive their prescriptions from primary care providers.

Opioid dose risk, clinician and patient characteristics, and adherence to opioid prescribing recommendations in chronic non-cancer pain.

This study aims to assess associations between morphine-equivalent daily dose (MEDD) of opioids, clinician and patient characteristics, and prescriber adherence to guidelines for long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) in chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) and to elucidate potential relationships associated with increased-risk opioid prescribing. Retrospective cross-sectional study. Academic health system's 33 primary care clinics. Adults (≥18 years old) prescribed LTOT (10 + outpatient prescriptions in the past year) for CNCP. Electronic health record data on prescribed opioids (for MEDD), clinician/patient characteristics, and adherence rates to LTOT guideline-concordant recommendations. A total of 2,738 patients were eligible, 61.6 percent Lower, 15.7 percent Moderate, and 22.7 percent Higher Risk MEDD (<50, 50-89, and ≥90 mg/day, respectively). Higher MEDD correlated (p < 0.001) with Medicare insurance, current cigarette smoking, higher pain intensity and interference scores, and the presence of opioid use disorder diagnoses. Male clinicians more frequently prescribed (p < 0.001) and male patients were more likely to be prescribed (p < 0.001) higher MEDD compared to their female counterparts. Higher Risk MEDD was associated with higher coprescribed benzodiazepines (p = 0.015), lower depression screening (p = 0.048), urine drug testing (p = 0.003), comparable active treatment agreement (p = 0.189), opioid misuse risk screening (p = 0.619), and prescription drug monitoring checks (p = 0.203). This study documented that higher MEDD was associated with risks of worse health outcomes without improved adherence to opioid prescribing guideline recommendations. Enhanced clinician awareness of factors associated with MEDD has the potential to mitigate LTOT risks and improve overall patient care.

Prescribing Opioid Analgesics: what Preventive Measures Taken by Doctors to Avoid Their Problematic Use?

Introduction: Opioid analgesics, whether strong or weak, carry a risk of dependence, abuse, and misuse, influenced by various factors, including individual terrain, environment, properties of the opioids, and pain. The risk of opioid use disorder when taking prescription opioids is approximately 3% over 2 years, highlighting the importance of early detection of patients at risk. Methodology and Objectives: This study is a descriptive and analytical survey that questioned 120 doctors about their opioid prescribing method. It took place over two months using Google Forms software. The goal was to understand how doctors prescribe opioids and what they look for in patients' profiles to detect risks of opioid use disorder. Discussion: Our study highlights that half of doctors do not take the patient's profile into account, even if they have a psychiatric and addictological history. A Canadian study shows that the assessment of the risk of misuse is more frequent than in our study. In addition, Morocco does not have specific recommendations for the risk of addiction, unlike some countries such as Canada. In our study, codeine is widely prescribed, mainly due to doctors' lack of awareness of its addictive potential, followed by Tramadol. However, in the literature, Tramadol and Codeine are more commonly used. Opioids are prescribed for severe pain in most cases, but sometimes for pain without an appropriate indication, such as migraine or fibromyalgia. Studies show high inappropriate use, especially for chronic non-cancer pain. It is crucial not to extend the prescription of opioids beyond three months in the absence of improvement and not to exceed 150 mg of morphine equivalent per day. In addition, it is essential to regularly monitor the pleasant and euphoric effects of opioids, as well as to provide training and information to practitioners while creating a prescribing guide. Conclusion: The dosage of opioids must be adjusted individually according to pain, with ......

The role of primary care in opioid prescribing for head and neck cancer (HNC) survivors.

480 Background: Older HNC survivors often experience post-treatment pain, and they have concerningly high rates of unsafe opioid prescribing (e.g., high doses, concurrent benzodiazepines). Interventions to improve opioid safety should target providers who prescribe opioids to HNC survivors. We hypothesized that oncologists were responsible for most opioid prescribing to HNC survivors, but that involvement of primary care providers (PCPs) as prescribers increased over time after treatment. Methods: Using linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry and Medicare claims data, we identified adults age &gt;65 diagnosed 2014-2017 with stage I-III HNC with ≥6 months treatment-free follow-up prior to censoring at further treatment, new cancer, hospice, death, or end 2019. Starting 1 month after treatment completion, all opioid fills were assigned to a prescriber specialty: oncology (medical, radiation, surgical), surgery, primary care (internal medicine, family practice, geriatrics), pain, or other. Prescriber patterns were summarized at the fill and patient levels for each year of follow-up. Results: Among 5494 HNC survivors with median 2.1 years of treatment-free follow-up, 3092 (56%) had ≥1 opioid fill. At the fill level, almost half of all opioids (47%) were dispensed in the first year after treatment completion, with fewer fills each subsequent year. Contrary to our hypothesis, only 9% of all fills were prescribed by oncologists. Half of all fills were prescribed by PCPs; 14% were prescribed by pain specialists and 9% by surgeons. At the patient level, on average, each survivor had 34% of their opioid fills prescribed by primary care providers, followed by 24% by surgeons and 10% by oncologists. The proportion of survivors’ fills prescribed by PCPs remained high (36%-42% of each survivor’s fills) across all years, while proportion of each survivor’s fills prescribed by oncologists declined from 14% to 2% over years of follow-up. (See Table). Conclusions: PCPs prescribe a greater proportion of HNC survivors’ opioids than oncologists and surgeons combined. While oncologists’ and surgeons’ role as opioid prescribers declines over time, primary care involvement in opioid prescribing remains high throughout survivorship, suggesting that PCPs manage cancer-related pain, non-cancer pain is prevalent after HNC, or both. Interventions to address unsafe opioid use among HNC survivors should target the primary care setting, as is typical for opioid-reduction efforts in the non-cancer population.[Table: see text]

Baseline Characteristics From a New Longitudinal Cohort of Patients With Noncancer Pain and Chronic Opioid Use in the United States

Retrospective cohort studies have consistently observed that long-term prescription opioid use is a risk factor for new major depressive episodes. However, prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings and establish evidence for causation. The Prescription Opioids and Depression Pathways cohort study is designed for this purpose. The present report describes the baseline sample and associations between participant characteristics and odds of daily versus nondaily opioid use. Second, we report associations between participant characteristics and odds of depression, dysthymia, anhedonia, and vital exhaustion. Patients with noncancer pain were eligible if they started a new period of prescription opioid use lasting 30 to 90 days. Participants were 54.8 (standard deviation ± 11.3) years of age, 57.3% female and 73% White race. Less than college education was more common among daily versus nondaily opioid users (32.4% vs 27.3%; P = .0008), as was back pain (64.2% vs 51.3%; P < .0001), any nonopioid substance use disorder (12.8% vs 4.8%; P < .0001), and current smoking (30.7% vs 18.4% P < .0001). High pain interference (50.9% vs 28.4%; P < .0001) was significantly associated with depression, as was having more pain sites (6.9 ± 3.6 vs 5.7 ± 3.6; P < .0001), and benzodiazepine comedication (38.2% vs 23.4%; P < .0001). High pain interference was significantly more common among those with anhedonia (46.8% vs 27.4%; P < .0001), and more pain sites (7.0 ± 3.7 vs 5.6 ± 3.6; P < .0001) were associated with anhedonia. Having more pain sites (7.9 ± 3.6 vs 5.5 ± 3.50; P < .0001) was associated with vital exhaustion, as was back pain (71.9% vs 56.8%; P = .0001) and benzodiazepine comedication (42.8% vs 22.8%; P < .0001). Patients using prescription opioids for noncancer pain have complex pain, psychiatric, and substance use disorder comorbidities. Longitudinal data will reveal whether long-term opioid therapy leads to depression or other mood disturbances such as anhedonia and vital exhaustion. PerspectiveThis study reports baseline characteristics of a new prospective, noncancer pain cohort study. Risk factors for adverse opioid outcomes were most common in those with depression and vital exhaustion and less common in dysthymia and anhedonia. Baseline data highlight the complexity of patients receiving long-term opioid therapy for noncancer pain.

Long-term benzodiazepine usage and mortality in patients with chronic non-cancer musculoskeletal pain: A Nationwide cohort study.

The impact of benzodiazepine use on mortality in patients with chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) has not been identified. We aimed to examine the factors associated with benzodiazepine use among patients with CNCP and examine whether long-term benzodiazepine usage is associated with mortality in patients with CNCP. This study was conducted using data from the National Health Insurance Service database of South Korea. We selected 2.5% of all adult patients diagnosed with musculoskeletal diseases (MSD) in South Korea from 2010 to 2019 using a stratified random sampling technique and included them in the analysis as patients with CNCP. The risk of 10-year all-cause mortality in patients with CNCP was investigated using the 2010 cohort of patients with CNCP. The proportion of the study population that used benzodiazepine during the 10-year study period was 2.1% (390,683/18,770,234). Multivariable logistic regression showed that old age; increased Charlson comorbidity index (CCI); opioid, gabapentin or pregabalin, paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and Z-drugs usage; and underlying psychiatric comorbidities were associated with increased benzodiazepine use. In addition, benzodiazepine use was associated with increased 10-year all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.03, 95% confidence interval: 1.01, 1.06; p < 0.001). Benzodiazepine was prescribed to 2.1% of the patients with CNCP in South Korea from 2010 to 2019. Old age, increased CCI, underlying psychiatric comorbidities, and use of certain drugs are associated with increased use of benzodiazepines. In addition, benzodiazepine use is associated with 10-year all-cause mortality in patients with CNCP.

Physicians' perception about predictors of opioid abuse in patients with chronic non-cancer pain: a Delphi study.

Opioids are being prescribed widely, and increasingly, for the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP). However, several side effects are associated with mid- and long-term opioid use and, for certain patients, with the risk of problematic opioid use. The aim of this study is to know the perception of the physicians about which variables could be associated with increased risk of patients with CNCP developing a problem of abuse or misuse of the prescribed opioid medication. Twenty-nine physicians with experience in CNCP pain management and opioids prescription participated in a two-round Delphi study focused on the risk factors for opioid misuse and abuse. The variables that reached consensus regarding their relationship with the increased risk of suffering a problem of opioid abuse or misuse were: (1) Experiencing pain on a daily basis, (2) previous use of high-dose opioids, (3) generalized anxiety, (4) hopelessness, (5) benzodiazepine intake, (6) use of opioids for reasons other than pain, (7) family problems, family instability or family breakdown, and (8) having access to several opioid prescribers. The only variable that reached consensus regarding it not being associated to a possible risk of abuse or misuse was having mild pain intensity (0-4 on a NRS-11). This study provides useful information that could help make decisions about the use of opioids for CNCP treatment and prevent future difficulties. Prospective studies testing the relationship of the variables that reached consensus with the risk of opioid misuse and abuse are warranted. This study shows the variables of CNCP that the professional must take into account in order to avoid possible problems when prescribing opioids.

Shifting quality chronic pain treatment measures from processes to outcomes.

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. 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. 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. 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.

Longitudinal Trajectory of Opioid Prescribing and its Associated Serious Adverse Events: A Population-Wide Cohort Study in Taiwan.

Chronic opioid prescribing (COP) for noncancer pain is highly restricted in Taiwan, but tramadol is not listed in the regulation on chronic prescribing. This study investigated the trajectories of COP in noncancer pain when considering tramadol in Taiwan and identified the risk of serious adverse events. This population-wide longitudinal cohort study used the Taiwan National Health Insurance claims records from 2001 to 2016. Adults prescribed opioids (including tramadol) and without cancer were selected. Patients who received COP (opioid supply days for 28 days or continuous opioid supply for 14 days) in the first patient quarter were included, and serious adverse events were identified. Group-based trajectory models were applied to identify patients with a similar trajectory of quarterly COP. The Cox proportional hazard model was applied to assess the association between adverse events and patients' trajectories. Of the 2,360,358 noncancer opioid users, 476,934 (20.2%) received COP in the first quarter. Four groups of COP trajectory were identified, and 59,310 (12.8%) patients received COP quarterly over 2 years. Patients categorized into the trajectory of long-term COP had a significantly higher crude incidence rate of cardiovascular death, seizure, and hypoglycemia. Still, there is no newly developed opioid use disorder. There was a substantial underestimate in COP in Taiwan when tramadol was not considered. Notably, 10% of them could receive COP for over 2 years. The result raises concern about unmet pain management needs and the limited accessibility of alternative treatments for noncancer pain.