Prescribing In Chronic Non-cancer Pain Research Articles

E051 A systematic review of audit and feedback tools to reduce opioid prescribing for chronic non-cancer pain

Abstract Background/Aims Opioid prescribing has increased considerably over the 15 years for chronic non-cancer pain in the UK, including for musculoskeletal conditions. Whilst there are national and international guidelines to reduce inappropriate opioid prescribing, these are not always adhered to in practice. Audit and feedback is a common intervention for supporting clinical behaviour change. Little is known if such tools have been used to support safer opioid prescribing to date. This systematic review aimed to describe audit and feedback tools that were designed, implemented and led to changes in opioid prescribing practices. Methods A systematic review of the literature was performed as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses framework (PRISMA). Both Embase and MEDLINE were searched to identify studies that included audit and feedback tools in patients prescribed opioids with chronic non-cancer pain until the 31st of May 2021. Results Of the 539 studies imported, following removal of duplicates, 497 studies were screened. Following title and abstract review 6 full-text studies were assessed for eligibility. A total of three studies were deemed to meet inclusion criteria. Approaches found included: The Controlled Medication Advisory Board (CMAB), Systems Consultation and the Opioid Safety Initiative (OSI). CMAB involved the use of a dashboard to provide feedback to clinicians on referred patients. As a result the opioid prescribing rate per 100 patient visits decreased by 31% and the rate of co-prescription of benzodiazepines and opioids decreased by 56%. Systems Consultation involved the use of audit and feedback, academic detailing and external facilitation to reduce opioid prescribing. Systems consultation resulted in a statistically significant reduction in the morphine equivalent daily doses. The OSI used automatic electronic medical records auditing to enable clinic leaders to identify physician prescribing patterns via a dashboard. OSI enabled a 9.9% reduction in opioid prescriptions from 571,476 to 514,883. Conclusion Computerised audit and feedback tools may be effective interventions to support opioid stewardship initiative and promote safer opioid prescribing. Such approaches being used internationally could pave the way for similar initiatives in the UK and future research evaluating their impact on patient safety. Disclosure J. Feldman: None. M. Jani: Grants/research support; National Institute for Health and Care Research Advanced Fellowship (NIHR301413).

Patient, family members and community pharmacists' views of a proposed overdose prevention intervention delivered in community pharmacies for patients prescribed high-strength opioids for chronic non-cancer pain: An explorative intervention development study.

Despite opioid prescribing for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) having limited therapeutic benefits, recent evidence indicates significant increases in the prescribing of high-strength opioids for individuals with CNCP. Patients prescribed opioids for CNCP have overdose risk factors but generally have low opioid overdose awareness and low perceptions of risk related to prescribed opioids. Currently, there are few bespoke overdose prevention resources for this group. This qualitative study investigated views on a naloxone intervention for people prescribed high-strength opioids for CNCP delivered via community pharmacies. The intervention included overdose risk awareness and naloxone training and provision. Interviews were conducted with eight patients, four family members and two community pharmacists. Participants were convenience sampled and recruited through networks within the Scottish pain community. The Framework approach was used to analyse findings. All participants had positive attitudes towards the intervention, but patients and family members considered risk of overdose to be very low. Three themes were identified: potential advantages of the intervention; potential barriers to the intervention; and additional suggestions and feedback about the intervention. Advantages included the intervention providing essential overdose information for CNCP patients. Barriers included resource and time pressures within community pharmacies. While patients had low overdose knowledge and did not see themselves as being at risk of opioid overdose, they were receptive to naloxone use and positive about the proposed intervention. A feasibility trial is merited to further investigate how the intervention would be experienced within community pharmacy settings.

Shifting interpretations in evidence and guidance in pain and opioids research: A bibliometric analysis of a highly cited case series from 1986.

We conducted a multi-method bibliometric analysis of all citations of this article from 1986 through 2019 using quantitative relational and qualitative content analysis to determine how uses and interpretations of this case series and associated prescribing guidance have changed over time, in relationship to the evolution of the North American opioid crises. Using time series analysis, we identified three periods with distinct interpretations and uses of the index article. In the first 'exploration' period (1986-1996), the index article was well-received by the scientific community and motivated further study of the effects of opioids. In the second 'implementation' period (1997-2003, coinciding with the release of OxyContin®), this case series was used as evidence to support widespread prescribing of opioid analgesics, even while it was recognized that long-term effects had not yet been evaluated. The third 'reassessment' period (2004-2019) focused on how opioid-related harms had been overlooked, and in many cases, these harms were directly attributed to this article. These changes in interpretation demonstrate shifting currents of the use and mobilization of evidence regarding pain and opioids, and how these currents both impact and are impacted by clinical practices and major sociohistorical phenomena such as the opioid crisis. Researchers and clinicians must account for these shifting dynamics when developing and interpreting scientific knowledge, including in the form of clinical practice guidelines.

Responsible Prescribing of Opioids for Chronic Non-Cancer Pain: A Scoping Review.

Chronic non-cancer pain is common and long-term opioid therapy is frequently used in its management. While opioids can be effective, they are also associated with significant harm and misuse, and clinicians must weigh any expected benefits with potential risks when making decisions around prescribing. This review aimed to summarise controlled trials and systematic reviews that evaluate patient-related, provider-related, and system-related factors supporting responsible opioid prescribing for chronic non-cancer pain. A scoping review methodology was employed, and six databases were searched. Thirteen systematic reviews and nine controlled trials were included for analysis, and clinical guidelines were reviewed to supplement gaps in the literature. The majority of included studies evaluated provider-related factors, including prescribing behaviours and monitoring for misuse. A smaller number of studies evaluated system-level factors such as regulatory measures and models of healthcare delivery. Studies and guidelines emphasise the importance of careful patient selection for opioid therapy, development of a treatment plan, and cautious initiation and dose escalation. Lower doses are associated with reduced risk of harm and can be efficacious, particularly when used in the context of a multimodal interdisciplinary pain management program. Further research is needed around many elements of responsible prescribing, including instruments to monitor for misuse, and the role of policies and programs.

Clinical Decision Support Systems for Opioid Prescribing for Chronic Non-Cancer Pain in Primary Care: A Scoping Review.

Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) may help clinicians prescribe opioids for chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) more appropriately. This scoping review determined the extent and range of the current evidence on CDSSs for opioid prescribing for CNCP in primary care, and whether investigators followed best evidence and current guidance in designing, implementing and evaluating these complex interventions. We searched 9 electronic databases and other data sources for studies from January 1, 2008 to October 11, 2019. Two reviewers independently screened the citations. One reviewer extracted data and a second verified for accuracy. study of a CDSS for opioid prescribing for CNCP in a primary care clinical setting. We reported quantitative results in tables and qualitative results in narrative form. Our search yielded 5068 records, of which 14 studies met our inclusion criteria. All studies were conducted in the United States. Six studies examined local (eg, health center) CDSSs and 8 examined prescription drug monitoring program CDSSs. Three CDSSs incorporated evidence-based components. Study aims were heterogeneous and study designs included both quantitative and qualitative methodologies. No studies assessed patient health outcomes. Few studies appeared to be following guidance for evaluating complex interventions. Few studies have rigorously assessed the use of CDSSs for opioid prescribing for CNCP in primary care settings. Going forward, investigators should include evidence-based components into the design of CDSSs and follow guidance for the development and evaluation of complex interventions.

Drivers of the opioid crisis: An appraisal of financial conflicts of interest in clinical practice guideline panels at the peak of opioid prescribing.

Starting in the late 1990s, the pharmaceutical industry sought to increase prescribing of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain. Influencing the content of clinical practice guidelines may have been one strategy industry employed. In this study we assessed potential risk of bias from financial conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry in guidelines for opioid prescribing for chronic non-cancer pain published between 2007 and 2013, the peak of opioid prescribing. We used the Guideline Panel Review (GPR) to appraise the guidelines included in the 2014 systematic review and critical appraisal by Nuckols et al. These were English language opioid prescribing guidelines for adults with chronic non-cancer pain published between July 2007 and July 2013, the peak of opioid prescribing. The GPR assigns red flags to items known to introduce potential bias from financial conflicts of interest. We operationalized the GPR by creating specific definitions for each red flag. Two reviewers independently evaluated each guideline. Disagreements were resolved with discussion. We also compared our score to the critical appraisal scores for overall quality from the study by Nuckols et al. We appraised 13 guidelines, which received 43 red flags in total. Guidelines had 3.3 red flags on average (out of a possible seven) with range from one to six. Four guidelines had missing information, so red flags may be higher than reported. The guidelines with the highest and second highest scores for overall quality in the 2014 critical appraisal by Nuckols et al. had five and three red flags, respectively. Our findings reveal that the guidelines for opioid prescribing chronic non-cancer pain from 2007 to 2013 were at risk of bias because of pervasive conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry and a paucity of mechanisms to address bias. Even highly-rated guidelines examined in a 2014 systematic review and critical appraisal had many red flags.

Opioid Prescribing Safety Measures Utilized by Primary Healthcare Providers in Canada: A Scoping Review

Background Opioid-related hospitalizations, emergency department visits, and mortality due to opioid poisoning have risen across Canada. The high use of opioids warrants the examination of safety measures used by primary healthcare providers (PHCPs). Objective To identify and synthesize the opioid prescribing safety measures literature to determine the extent, range, and nature of literature available regarding the safety measures utilized by PHCPs when prescribing opioids in Canada. Methods Two independent researchers conducted a scoping review to determine the extent, range, and nature of literature available regarding the safety measures utilized by PHCPs when prescribing opioids in Canada. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) and the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers’ Manual were used to guide the review. Results All sources reviewed physician prescribing practices; none of the literature concerned nurse practitioner opioid prescribing. Four themes emerged: (a) inadequate physician knowledge and education regarding opioid prescribing for chronic noncancer pain, (b) challenge of prescribing opioids, (c) improper funding structure and time for complex patient assessments, and (d) lack of emergency department guidelines. Conclusion Undertaking the issues of chronic noncancer pain and the opioid crisis will require a multifaceted approach that includes increased pain management education, community support and services, review of institutional practices, and increased funding in the area of pain research. Opioid-related hospitalizations, emergency department visits, and mortality due to opioid poisoning have risen across Canada. The high use of opioids warrants the examination of safety measures used by primary healthcare providers (PHCPs). To identify and synthesize the opioid prescribing safety measures literature to determine the extent, range, and nature of literature available regarding the safety measures utilized by PHCPs when prescribing opioids in Canada. Two independent researchers conducted a scoping review to determine the extent, range, and nature of literature available regarding the safety measures utilized by PHCPs when prescribing opioids in Canada. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) and the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers’ Manual were used to guide the review. All sources reviewed physician prescribing practices; none of the literature concerned nurse practitioner opioid prescribing. Four themes emerged: (a) inadequate physician knowledge and education regarding opioid prescribing for chronic noncancer pain, (b) challenge of prescribing opioids, (c) improper funding structure and time for complex patient assessments, and (d) lack of emergency department guidelines. Undertaking the issues of chronic noncancer pain and the opioid crisis will require a multifaceted approach that includes increased pain management education, community support and services, review of institutional practices, and increased funding in the area of pain research.

What are Future Pain Physicians Learning? A Survey of Opioid Prescribing Practices Among US Pain Fellowship Programs

Background: Pain physicians have long been seen as subspecialists that commonly prescribe opioid medications, but the reality exists that primary care, oncologists, and surgical subspecialists find themselves embroiled in these clinical decisions just as frequently. It is a reasonable hope that pain physicians emerge as leaders in navigating these muddy waters, and the most important time to engrave practice standards is during clinical training. Objectives: It was our hope to survey Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) pain fellowship programs throughout the United States in regard to practice behaviors for opioid prescribing in chronic noncancer pain (CNCP), and to assess what future pain physicians are learning during their training. Study Design: We developed a succinct, 8-question survey that attempted to gauge several aspects of opioid prescribing practices for CNCP. A survey was prepared in electronic format and e-mailed to each program director or chair of every ACGME accredited pain program in the United States. Methods: Our results were anonymously collected and percentage of response to each question was presented in bar graph format. The survey was prepared and initially sent out in November 2017 and intermittently redistributed through April 2018. Results: Of the 117 surveys sent through Survey Monkey, 42 responses were returned and collected, 39 fully completed surveys, and 3 partial completions, an estimate of roughly one-third of US ACGME pain fellowship programs. Limitations: Completion of our survey was voluntary, roughly 35% of ACGME programs submitted a response. Conclusions: Data displayed in collected responses illustrate that although there is variance in opioid prescribing practices for CNCP, many programs are limiting what they use opioids for and have substantial nonopioid pharmacologic and or interventional aspects to their practice. Future pain physicians throughout the country are learning diverse methods of pain management, with opioids being only a part of their toolbox. Key words: Opioids, ACGME, pain management fellowship, guidelines, teaching

Meeting Physician Compliance Recommendations in the Management of Opioids in Chronic Pain: The Chronic Pain Management Registry (CPMR).

In a recent commentary in INNOVATIONS in Pharmacy, details were given on a recently released Chronic Pain Management Registry (CPMR). The CPMR was designed to provide a tracking and audit framework for evaluating claims made for therapy interventions in chronic pain management. At the same time, the CPMR was seen as a key element in monitoring physician and practice compliance with requirements for the prescribing of opioids and other scheduled substances. The purpose of the present commentary is to expand upon the role of the CPMR in the management of opioids in detailing the concordance of the CPMR data collection requirements with the latest recommendations of the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) for responsible, safe and effective opioid prescribing in chronic non-cancer pain. Given ongoing concerns with opioid misuse and abuse, the opioid epidemic, physician practices are at risk for what may be judged as poor therapy decisions in evaluating medical necessity and a failure to monitor effectively response to therapy. Adoption of a platform such as the CPMR may, through providing a comprehensive evidence base and tracking capability, support more effective prescribing decisions and adherence to therapy. At the same time, the ability to justify decisions through a CPMR documentation audit may not only alleviate physician concerns if their decisions are challenged but also lead to improved outcomes in the treatment of chronic pain.

Prescribed opioid analgesic use developments in three Nordic countries, 2006-2017.

Background and aims While the Nordic countries have considerably stricter controls on opioid prescribing for chronic non-cancer pain than other countries, previous research has warned that prescription of strong opioids is increasing. This study examines consumption of and developments in dispensed prescribed opioids to individuals receiving ambulatory care from 2006 to 2017, using publicly available data from each of three Nordic countries' national prescription registries. Methods Repeated, cross-sectional design. One-year prevalence of all dispensed prescribed opioids in ATC N02A group were reported for Norway, Denmark, and Sweden in the period 2006-2017 by gender. One-year prevalence of the weak opioids tramadol and codeine and the strong opioid oxycodone were then reported separately over this period for each country. The mean defined daily dose (DDD) per user per year, an estimate of the amount of opioids prescribed, was reported for each of the three opioids in 2016. Results Patterns of dispensed prescribed opioids differ greatly between 2006 and 2017 and between countries, with tramadol increasing in Norway, codeine declining across the board, and oxycodone increasing in all three countries. Norway exceeded Sweden and Denmark in prevalence of all dispensed prescribed opioids, with 12.1% of the female Norwegian population and 9.2% of the male Norwegian population dispensed at least one prescribed opioid as an outpatient in 2016. Norway's high overall prevalence rates are tempered by dispensing the lowest mean doses of both weak opioids compared to Sweden. Similarly, Sweden dispenses the lowest mean doses of oxycodone but to the largest proportion of its population (3.0%). Conclusions Significant shifts have occurred in the dispensing of prescribed opioids in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark over the past 12 years. The increasing prevalence of oxycodone in all three countries should continue to be monitored. Prescription registries provide a wealth of publicly available data that can be used to monitor and to guide prescribing policies in a more knowledge-based direction.

Opioid prescribing in general practice: use of a two-stage review tool to identify and assess high-dose prescribing.

Long-term opioid analgesic prescribing in chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) is a growing worldwide concern. This has implications for optimal healthcare management in general and chronic pain management specifically. This work documents the development of a review tool and its use in the South West of England in a locality that showed opioid prescribing levels higher than surrounding localities. An electronic tool which enabled calculation of total prescribed morphine-equivalent doses was developed to allow general practitioners (GPs) to undertake reviews of CNCP patients. This tool was used to assess strong opioid prescribing over a 3-month period at every GP practice (n = 41) in the locality. Every prescription for morphine, oxycodone, pethidine and fentanyl during this period was included.Aspects assessed included drug(s) prescribed, dose prescribed, whether tramadol was prescribed concurrently, whether the drugs were potentially being overused and/or whether the patient was in palliative care. Patients prescribed over 120 mg morphine equivalent per day were reviewed in greater depth, as this is an indication for specialist input. In total, 1881 patients received a prescription in the assessment period. Morphine was the most commonly prescribed drug (n = 847). In all, 363 CNCP patients were prescribed a dose equal to or above 120 mg morphine a day, with a maximum morphine-equivalent dose of 890 mg being prescribed. Over 11% (n = 211) of patients were concurrently prescribed tramadol. The most frequently cited reason for prescription of high-dose opioids was found to be a musculoskeletal pain of the back, neck, joints or limbs. The care of 85 specific CNCP patients was reviewed and optimised. No published work to date has documented such an in-depth analysis of primary-care opioid analgesic prescribing utilising prescriber data. Assessing total-dose morphine-equivalent prescribing using this method provides valuable insights into the potential need for urgent medication review. The tool developed may be of value to other GP practices following validation.

Opioid Prescribing During Pregnancy: Eight-Year Secular Trends at HealthPartners Medical Group

Background: Nationally, opioid prescribing for chronic noncancer pain has increased significantly over the last 20 years. Recently published evidence suggests that 20% to 40% of women received opioid prescriptions of varying doses and durations during pregnancy, which may cause increased risks of harm to mother and fetus. The purpose of this retrospective observational study was to determine the prevalence of opioid prescribing 3 months before pregnancy, each trimester of pregnancy and 3 months postpartum, as well as the secular utilization trend over an 8-year period, among member-patients at HealthPartners Medical Group (HPMG).

Protecting Pain Patients. The Evaluation of a Chronic Pain Educational Intervention.

Advocacy and commercially funded education successfully reduced barriers to the provision of long-term opioid analgesia. The subsequent escalation of opioid prescribing for chronic noncancer pain has seen increasing harms without improved pain outcomes. This was a one-group pretest-posttest design study. A multidisciplinary team developed a chronic pain educational package for general practitioner trainees emphasizing limitations, risk-mitigation, and deprescribing of opioids with transition to active self-care. This educational intervention incorporated prereadings, a resource kit, and a 90-minute interactional video case-based workshop incorporated into an education day. Evaluation was via pre- and postintervention (two months) questionnaires. Differences in management of two clinical vignettes were tested using McNemar's test. Of 58 eligible trainees, 47 (response rate = 81.0%) completed both questionnaires (36 of whom attended the workshop). In a primary analysis including these 47 trainees, therapeutic intentions of tapering opioid maintenance for pain (in a paper-based clinical vignette) increased from 37 (80.4%) pre-intervention to 44 (95.7%) postintervention (P = 0.039). In a sensitivity analysis including only trainees attending the workshop, 80.0% pre-intervention and 97.1% postintervention tapered opioids (P = 0.070). Anticipated initiation of any opioids for a chronic osteoarthritic knee pain clinical vignette reduced from 35 (74.5%) to 24 (51.1%; P = 0.012) in the primary analysis and from 80.0% to 41.7% in the sensitivity analysis (P = 0.001). Necessary improvements in pain management and opioid harm avoidance are predicated on primary care education being of demonstrable efficacy. This brief educational intervention improved hypothetical management approaches two months subsequently. Further research measuring objective changes in physician behavior, especially opioid prescribing, is indicated.

Annals for Educators - 15 November 2016

Annals for Educators - 15 November 2016

Does brief chronic pain management education change opioid prescribing rates? A pragmatic trial in Australian early-career general practitioners.

We aimed to evaluate the effect of pain education on opioid prescribing by early-career general practitioners. A brief training workshop was delivered to general practice registrars of a single regional training provider. The workshop significantly reduced "hypothetical" opioid prescribing (in response to paper-based vignettes) in an earlier evaluation. The effect of the training on "actual" prescribing was evaluated using a nonequivalent control group design nested within the Registrar Clinical Encounters in Training (ReCEnT) cohort study: 4 other regional training providers were controls. In ReCEnT, registrars record detailed data (including prescribing) during 60 consecutive consultations, on 3 occasions. Analysis was at the level of individual problem managed, with the primary outcome factor being prescription of an opioid analgesic and the secondary outcome being opioid initiation. Between 2010 and 2015, 168,528 problems were recorded by 849 registrars. Of these, 71% were recorded by registrars in the nontraining group. Eighty-two percentages were before training. Opioid analgesics were prescribed in 4382 (2.5%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.40-2.63) problems, with 1665 of these (0.97%, 95% CI: 0.91-1.04) representing a new prescription. There was no relationship between the training and total prescribing after training (interaction odds ratio: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.75-1.35; P value 0.96). There was some evidence of a reduction in initial opioid prescriptions in the training group (interaction odds ratio: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.48-1.16; P value 0.19). This brief training package failed to increase overall opioid cessation. The inconsistency of these actual prescribing results with "hypothetical" prescribing behavior suggests that reducing opioid prescribing in chronic noncancer pain requires more than changing knowledge and attitudes.

GPs prescribing of strong opioid drugs for patients with chronic non-cancer pain: a qualitative study.

Chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) is common in the UK. GPs manage most patients with such pain. Previous research has suggested that prescribing is influenced by patient and doctor factors, but less is known about the decision- making process involved in prescribing opioid drugs for CNCP. To describe the factors influencing GPs' prescribing of strong opioid drugs for CNCP. Design and setting Semi-structured interviews and a focus group of a purposive sample of GPs from a range of practice settings including male and female GPs with experience of prescribing strong opioids. Transcripts of interviews and a focus group were analysed using qualitative research methodology (thematic analysis). GPs described prescribing opioid drugs for patients with CNCP as being different from treating cancer related pain. GPs followed accepted stepwise approaches in their prescribing for CNCP. They reported difficulty in assessing the level of pain and concern over duration of use of strong opioids and their possible side effects, tolerance, and addiction. Variation in reported practice was observed, which may be linked to experience and significant events. GPs in this study demonstrated a thoughtful attitude towards prescribing strong opioids for CNCP. They were aware of the difficulties of long-term strong opioid prescription. Only a few GPs had had specific training in chronic pain management and this may explain some of the variation in practice reported. GPs may benefit from training in pain assessment and long-term management of patients with CNCP.

Changes in Opioid Prescribing for Washington Workers' Compensation Claimants After Implementation of an Opioid Dosing Guideline for Chronic Noncancer Pain: 2004 to 2010

An opioid overdose epidemic emerged in the United States following increased opioid prescribing for chronic noncancer pain. In 2007, Washington State agencies implemented an opioid dosing guideline on safe prescribing for chronic noncancer pain. The objective of this population-based observational study was to evaluate opioid use and dosing before and after guideline implementation. We identified 161,283 workers aged 18 to 64 years with ≥1 opioid prescriptions in Washington Workers' Compensation, April 1, 2004, to December 31, 2010. Prevalence and incidence rates of opioid use were assessed. We compared pre- and postguideline chronic and high-dose use (≥120 mg/d) among incident users. The mean monthly prevalence of opioid use declined by 25.6% between 2004 (14.4%) and 2010 (10.7%). Fewer incident users went on to chronic opioid therapy in the postguideline period (4.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.5–5.0%) than in the preguideline period (6.3%; 95% CI, 6.1–6.6%). Compared with preguideline incident users, postguideline incident users were 35% less likely to receive high doses (adjusted odds ratio = .65; 95% CI, .59–.71). Although the extent to which decreases were due to the guidelines is uncertain, to our knowledge, this is the first report of significant decreases in chronic and high-dose prescription opioid use among incident users. PerspectiveEvidence-based strategies for opioid risk management are needed to help abate the epidemic of opioid-related morbidity and mortality. The study findings suggest that opioid dosing guidelines that specify a “yellow flag” dosing threshold may be a useful tool in preventing escalation of doses into ranges associated with increased mortality risk.

A Pendulum Swings Awry: Seeking the Middle Ground on Opioid Prescribing for Chronic Non-Cancer Pain

Perhaps at no time in history has the field of pain medicine experienced a crisis as overwhelming as the current one regarding the prescription of opioid analgesics for noncancer pain. Physicians and observers ⇓ have noted the dramatic swing from the overprescription of opioid analgesics in the 1990s and the early years of this millennium to a rash …

Opioid use among low back pain patients in primary care: Is opioid prescription associated with disability at 6-month follow-up?

Opioid prescribing for chronic noncancer pain is increasing, but there is limited knowledge about longer-term outcomes of people receiving opioids for conditions such as back pain. This study aimed to explore the relationship between prescribed opioids and disability among patients consulting in primary care with back pain. A total of 715 participants from a prospective cohort study, who gave consent for review of medical and prescribing records and completed baseline and 6month follow-up questionnaires, were included. Opioid prescription data were obtained from electronic prescribing records, and morphine equivalent doses were calculated. The primary outcome was disability (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire [RMDQ]) at 6months. Multivariable linear regression was used to examine the association between opioid prescription at baseline and RMDQ score at 6months. Analyses were adjusted for potential confounders using propensity scores reflecting the probability of opioid prescription given baseline characteristics. In the baseline period, 234 participants (32.7%) were prescribed opioids. In the final multivariable analysis, opioid prescription at baseline was significantly associated with higher disability at 6-month follow-up (P<.022), but the magnitude of this effect was small, with a mean RMDQ score of 1.18 (95% confidence interval: 0.17 to 2.19) points higher among those prescribed opioids compared to those who were not. Our findings indicate that even after adjusting for a substantial number of potential confounders, opioids were associated with slightly worse functioning in back pain patients at 6-month follow-up. Further research may help us to understand the mechanisms underlying these findings and inform clinical decisions regarding the usefulness of opioids for back pain.

CA8-04: Health Plan Implementation of a Major Risk Mitigation Initiative for Chronic Opioid Therapy

Background/Aims Increased opioid prescribing for chronic non-cancer pain has been accompanied by large increases in prescription opioid abuse and overdose. In April 2011, when the US government initially outlined a plan of action to stem a national epidemic of prescription drug abuse, Group Health (GH) had already implemented a major initiative to increase opioid prescribing safety. Group Health Research Institute had been conducting NIH-funded research on Chronic Opioid Therapy (COT). This research had shown rapid growth in COT prescribing and significant dose-related risks.