Use Of Non-opioids Research Articles

Pharmacological treatment of cancer pain and opioid induced nausea and vomiting: online survey and comparison with current guidelines

PurposeWe assumed that in Palliative Care, even in common clinical situations, the choice of drugs differs substantially between physicians. Therefore, we assessed the practice of pharmaceutical treatment choices of physicians for cancer pain and opioid-induced nausea and vomiting (OINV) and the rationale for their choices.MethodsAn online survey was conducted with physicians covering the following domains: i) Cancer pain therapy: non-opioids in addition to opioids: choice of drug ii) prevention of OINV: choice of drug and mode of application. Current guidelines concerning cancer pain therapy and prevention of OINV were compared.ResultsTwo-hundred-forty European physicians responded to our survey. i) Use of non-opioids in addition to opioids for the treatment of cancer pain: Only 1.3% (n = 3) of respondents never used an additional non-opioid. Others mostly used: dipyrone/metamizole (49.2%, n = 118), paracetamol/acetaminophen (34.2%, n = 82), ibuprofen / other NSAIDs (11.3%, n = 27), specific Cox2-inhibitors (2.1%, n = 5), Aspirin (0.4%, n = 1), no answer (2.9%, n = 7). ii) Antiemetics to prevent OINV: The drugs of choice were metoclopramide (58.3%, n = 140), haloperidol (26.3%, n = 63), 5-HT3 antagonists (9.6%, n = 23), antihistamines (1.3%, n = 3) and other (2.9%, n = 7); no answer (1.7%, n = 4). Most respondents prescribed the substances on-demand (59.6%, n = 143) while others (36.3%, n = 87) provided them as around the clock medication. Over both domains, most physicians answered that their choices were not based on solid evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Guidelines were inconsistent regarding if and what non-opioid to use for cancer pain and recommend anti-dopaminergic drugs for prevention or treatment of OINV.ConclusionsPhysician’s practice in palliative care for the treatment of cancer pain and OINV differed substantially. Respondents expressed the lack of high-quality evidence- based information from RCTs. We call for evidence from methodologically high-quality RCTs to be available to inform physicians about the benefits and harms of pharmacological treatments for common symptoms in palliative care.

Paracetamol versus Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs in Acute Pain in Trauma Management: Systemic Review

Background: Effective pain management is essential for patient recovery and quality of life. Paracetamol (Acetaminophen) and Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly used analgesics, but their comparative efficacy remains debated. Objective: To systematically review and compare the efficacy of paracetamol and NSAIDs in various pain scenarios. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted across major databases, primarily using PubMed. The search yielded studies that compared paracetamol to any NSAID in human trials. Following strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, 11 studies with 3,038 participants were finally included in the review. Results: Paracetamol demonstrated comparable efficacy to NSAIDs in multiple scenarios such as post-trauma, post-partial Mastectomy Pain, and migraine in children. While, in certain situations like postoperative pain after Day-Case Operative Hysteroscopy, Pain Post-Total Hip Arthroplasty, and Pain during Rapid Maxillary Expansion, NSAIDs showcased superior efficacy. In some cases, however, such as renal colic, conflicting study evidence was presented. Moreover, in acute settings when administered I.V., paracetamol was slightly more effective. Finally, the combination of NSAIDs with paracetamol did not always offer enhanced analgesic effects. Conclusion: The choice between paracetamol and NSAIDs should be based on the specific clinical scenario and patient needs. While paracetamol is often seen as a safer option, NSAIDs play a vital role in pain management in certain conditions. Generally, due to its safety profile and less GIT and CVS complications, paracetamol should be preferred in pain management as first-line agent, especially in mild cases before moving to NSAIDS in more moderate to severe cases. The route of administration can also affect the analgesic\'s efficacy with the IV route showing higher efficacy. The findings highlight the potential for reducing opioid use by optimizing the use of non-opioids.

(283) Managing Patient Pain Expectations in Buried Penis Repair: An Opportunity for Quality Improvement

Abstract Introduction Buried penis repairs are complex cases often requiring collaboration between urology and plastic surgery. These surgeries are often extensive, can require split thickness skin grafting (STSG) of the penile shaft, negative pressure wound vac, and have high incidence of wound complications. There are no studies that evaluate perioperative pain in patients undergoing buried penis repair. Objective In the ongoing opioid epidemic, we aim to evaluate patient risk factors and peri-operative elements that can minimize opioid use in buried penis repair. Methods A retrospective chart review of patients who underwent buried penis repair from 7/2012 to 7/2021 was performed. Patient demographics, comorbidities and perioperative data were collected, including history of chronic pain, indications, intraoperative findings, perioperative pain control, and 30-day post-operative encounters. The state’s prescription monitoring program was used to verify use of prescription pain medications prior to surgery, at discharge, and refills, collected as Morphine Equivalent Dose (MED). Results A total of 63 patients were included in analysis. Mean age was 55.9 ± 14.4 with a mean pre-op BMI of 41.99 ± 9.17. 75% required a STSG on the penile shaft. The median discharge MED (dMED) was 150, ranging from 0 to 450 MED. 36.5% required opioid refills within 30 days of surgery. This cohort was further separated into two groups: patients who were discharged with < 150 MED (A) vs ≥ 150 MED (B), based on the median dMED. Three patients were excluded: two were on home opioids, one discharged on benzodiazepines. There were no differences in age, pre-op BMI, medical comorbidities (CAD, PVD, HTN, DM, psychiatric history) or history of chronic pain between the cohorts. Surgery for improvement of hygiene was more likely to have higher dMED, 40.7% (A) vs 69.7% (B), p=0.017. Other surgical indications (sexual health, voiding) showed no difference. Prior surgeries (urethral procedures, circumcision) were statistically more likely to require higher dMED, 48.1% (A) vs 72.7% (B), p=0.033. If a penile skin graft was required, there was no difference in graft size and dMED. Twenty-six patients had a hospital managed wound vac, while 19 patients had home wound vacs, but there was no difference in dMED. Although there was no standardized hospital pain regimen, patients on scheduled acetaminophen were more likely to have a lower dMED, 70.3%(A) vs 42.4% (B), p=0.021. 40.7% (A) vs 36.4% (B) of patients required opioid refills within 30 days of surgery, showing no statistical significance. Conclusions For patients who are embarking on buried penis repair, providers can pre-operatively set pain control expectations, especially for those who require repair for hygiene purposes or have had prior urologic reconstructive surgery. In the perioperative setting, this data supports the use of non-opioids, specifically scheduled acetaminophen, to minimize opioid prescribing at discharge. Disclosure Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: Boston Scientific

Fixed Dose Versus Loose Dose: Analgesic Combinations.

Combinations of drugs may be fixed (two or more entities in a single product) or loose (two or more agents taken together but as individual agents) to help address multimechanistic pain. The use of opioids plus nonopioids can result in lower opioid consumption without sacrificing analgesic benefits. Drug combinations may offer additive or synergistic benefits. A variety of fixed-dose combination products are available on the market such as diclofenac plus thiocolchicoside, acetaminophen and caffeine, acetaminophen and opioid, ibuprofen and acetaminophen, tramadol and acetaminophen, and others. Fixed-dose combination products offer predictable pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, known adverse events, and can reduce the pill burden. However, they are limited to certain drug combinations and doses; loose dosing allows prescribers the versatility to meet individual patient requirements as well as the ability to titrate as needed. Not all drug combinations offer synergistic benefits, which depend on the drugs and their doses. Certain drugs offer dual mechanisms of action in a single molecule, such as tapentadol, and these may further be used in combination with other analgesics.New technology allows for co-crystal productions of analgesic agents which may further improve drug characteristics, such as bioavailability. Combination analgesics are important additions to the analgesic armamentarium and may offer important benefits at lower doses than monotherapy.

Nonopioid Analgesic Prescriptions Filled after Surgery among Older Adults in Ontario, Canada: A Population-based Cohort Study.

The objective was to assess changes over time in prescriptions filled for nonopioid analgesics for older postoperative patients in the immediate postdischarge period. The authors hypothesized that the number of patients who filled a nonopioid analgesic prescription increased during the study period. The authors performed a population-based cohort study using linked health administrative data of 278,366 admissions aged 66 yr or older undergoing surgery between fiscal year 2013 and 2019 in Ontario, Canada. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients with new filled prescriptions for nonopioid analgesics within 7 days of discharge, and the secondary outcome was the analgesic class. The authors assessed whether patients filled prescriptions for a nonopioid only, an opioid only, both opioid and nonopioid prescriptions, or a combination opioid/nonopioid. Overall, 22% (n = 60,181) of patients filled no opioid prescription, 2% (n = 5,534) filled a nonopioid only, 21% (n = 59,608) filled an opioid only, and 55% (n = 153,043) filled some combination of opioid and nonopioid. The percentage of patients who filled a nonopioid prescription within 7 days postoperatively increased from 9% (n = 2,119) in 2013 to 28% (n = 13,090) in 2019, with the greatest increase for acetaminophen: 3% (n = 701) to 20% (n = 9,559). The percentage of patients who filled a combination analgesic prescription decreased from 53% (n = 12,939) in 2013 to 28% (n = 13,453) in 2019. However, the percentage who filled both an opioid and nonopioid prescription increased: 4% (n = 938) to 21% (n = 9,880) so that the overall percentage of patients who received both an opioid and a nonopioid remained constant over time 76% (n = 18,642) in 2013 to 75% (n = 35,391) in 2019. The proportion of postoperative patients who fill prescriptions for nonopioid analgesics has increased. However, rather than a move to use of nonopioids alone for analgesia, this represents a shift away from combination medications toward separate prescriptions for opioids and nonopioids.

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Opioids vs Nonopioids in Acute Pancreatitis.

Although abdominal pain is one of the major criteria to diagnose acute pancreatitis (AP), there are no standardized guidelines to treat this troublesome symptom in the hospital setting. The aims of the study are to conduct a meta-analysis and to assess the efficacy of nonopioids vs opioids for pain management in AP. We searched the medical literature through May 2021 to identify randomized controlled trials that examined the efficacy of opioids with nonopioids in AP pain management. Efficacy was reported as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of each comparison tested. We identified 7 eligible randomized controlled trials, containing 389 patients. No significant difference in terms of pain intensity at day 1 (OR 0.82, 95% CI-2.55 to 4.19) was found between opioids and nonopioids. Nonopioids have a significantly high risk of supplementary analgesic use compared with opioids (OR 3.87, 95% CI 1.25-12.04). However, this significance is not seen when comparing nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and paracetamol with opioids (OR 1.67, 95% CI 0.73-3.82) after excluding trials with procaine. Opioids did not show a significant increase in the complications of pancreatitis, nausea and vomiting, sedation, and deaths when compared with nonopioids. We found nonopioids, especially nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and paracetamol, can provide adequate pain relief in patients with AP with no change in supplementary analgesic use and adverse events when compared with opioids. Further research is needed to optimize the use of nonopioids along or in combination with opioids for better pain control in patients with AP.

0723 Associations Between Opioids, Non-Opioids and Central Sleep Apnea: A Case-Control Study

Abstract Introduction Opioids are known to contribute to central sleep apnea (CSA), as they depress responsiveness to carbon dioxide and hypoxia. However, the role of non-opioid medications (antihistamines, myorelaxants, neuroleptics, antidepressants, and hypnotics) in CSA remains unclear. Given the hypothesized impact of non-opioids on the central nervous system, we examined associations between opioid and non-opioid medications and CSA. Methods Among all adults who underwent polysomnography testing at the University of Michigan’s Sleep Center between 2013-2018 (n=10,479), we identified 105 cases of CSA. Of these patients, we randomly selected 300 controls. Demographic and health characteristics, use of medications were obtained from medical charts. We classified study participants into three categories based on medication use: non-opioids only, opioids alone or in combination with non-opioids, and none. CSA was defined as a binary outcome using polysomnographic criteria as per the International Classification of Sleep Disorders-Third Edition. We used logistic regression to examine associations between medication use and CSA. Results Among participants, male:female ratio was 1:1 with a mean age of 49 (±14.3 SD) years. Opioid use alone was rare (4%), but more common in combination with non-opioids (17%), while the exclusive use of non-opioids was found among 38%. In adjusted analyses for age and sex, those who used non-opioid alone were less likely to have a CSA diagnosis (OR=0.88, (95% CI 0.5-1.6); however, the use of opioids (alone or in combination with non-opioids) was associated with a 4-fold higher odds of CSA. Conclusion These data suggest that non-opioids have a protective influence on CSA. Conversely, opioids, alone, or in combination with non-opioids, were associated with increased CSA risk, that may be attributed to opioids alone, or to opioids and non-opioids interactions. However, as opioids were mostly co-prescribed with non-opioids, the sole effect of opioids from the synergistic effect with non-opioids are difficult to disentangle. Support Dr. Gavidia was supported by a T32 Post-Doctoral Fellowship in Neuroscience NIH/NINDS T32 NS 007222

PDG42 REAL-WORLD EVIDENCE OF OPIOID AND NON-OPIOID USE IN PATIENTS WITH CHRONIC NON-CANCER PAIN: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

The increasing prevalence of prescription opioid use among patients with chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) has become a major public health concern. Existing protocol-driven studies have limitations in assessing the effectiveness of therapies and there is a need to identify real-world studies from diverse population of patients on their use and effectiveness of opioids and non-opioids in CNCP. A systematic review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was conducted from 1997 to 2017 in PubMed, PsycINFO and EMBASE databases. Observational studies including retrospective cohort, case-control, cross-sectional and longitudinal studies involving patients with CNCP and above 18 years of age were included in the review. A total of 369 articles were identified of which 23 studies met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. All but two studies (n = 21, 91.3%) were conducted in the United States. Majority of the studies utilized administrative claims data (n = 15, 65.21%) followed by electronic medical record (n = 3, 13.04 %) and survey (n = 2, 8.7%). Few studies (n = 8, 34.8%) evaluated the use of opioids in patients with CNCP with a history of substance use or mental health disorder, or with other conditions like epilepsy and HIV/AIDS. Opioid drug overdose risk was higher in patients with depression and those receiving high morphine equivalent dose or long-acting opioids. Major limitations of the studies included uncertainty over actual consumption of prescribed medicines, inability to assess degree of impairment of painful conditions and mood disorders; and inability to distinguish between prevalent and incident opioid users. Opioids were prescribed with various concomitant drugs including benzodiazepines, anticonvulsants, antidepressants in several studies. There is a need to further explore patient factors such as pain severity and psychiatric diagnosis that predict the use of opioids and non-opioids in CNCP.

Nurses' Knowledge of Opioids

The opioid crisis has influenced practice changes to mitigate risks to patients receiving opioids. It is essential that nurses understand contemporary guidelines to provide safe patient care for patients receiving opioids. This study was designed to assess general knowledge of opioids among nurses in nonprescribing patient care roles. A survey was developed, validated, and deployed to 564 nurses in a large hospital system. Nurses had strong knowledge of basic pharmacology, the conjunctive use of nonopioids for pain relief, and differences in analgesia for chronic versus acute pain. Opportunity for education included risk factors for opioid-related adverse events, medication combinations, differences in opioid tolerant and opioid-naïve patients, and recognition and management of overdose. Results of this study can be used to guide continuing education and academic curricula to ensure nurses are equipped with the key knowledge to provide safe quality clinical care and patient education.

Comparing Nonopioids Versus Opioids for Acute Pain in the Emergency Department: A Literature Review.

Pain is the most common reason for patient visits in the emergency department (ED). Opioids have been long considered the standard of care for acute pain in the ED. Because of the opioid crisis, investigation and implementation of novel practices to manage pain is needed. The use of various nonopioids has been suggested as a plausible alternative to opioids, with emerging literature to support its use for acute pain in the ED. To evaluate the safety, efficacy, opioid-sparing effects of nonopioids in patients who present with acute pain in the ED. We systematically searched PubMed and EMBASE (July 1970 to January 2019). Randomized controlled trials that evaluated nonopioids versus opioids in the ED were eligible. The clinical outcomes measured were change in pain scores compared with baseline, the incidence of adverse events, and use of rescue analgesia. Twenty-five randomized controlled trials that evaluated the use of nonopioids in 2323 patients [acetaminophen (APAP) (n = 651), diclofenac (n = 547), ketamine (n = 272), ketorolac (n = 225), lidocaine (n = 219), ibuprofen (n = 162), ibuprofen & APAP (n = 162), hydroxyzine & dihydroergotamine (n = 85)] met inclusion criteria. Four trials found significant greater reductions in pain scores, favoring nonopioids. In all trials, the duration of pain relief provided by nonopioids was not sustained over an extended period. Eighteen trials reported no significant differences in reduction of pain scores. Two trials reported improved pain reduction with opioids and one trial reported noninferiority. Evidence from primary literature suggests that nonopioids could be a feasible alternative to opioids for management of acute pain in the ED as it is effective, safe, and decreases the need for rescue analgesia.

Opioid use in the acute setting: A survey of providers at an academic medical center.

To examine attitudes, beliefs, and influencing factors of inpatient healthcare providers regarding prescription of opioid analgesics. Electronic cross-sectional survey. Academic medical center. Physicians, advanced practice providers, and pharmacists from a single academic medical center in the southeast United States. Respondents completed survey items addressing: (1) their practice demographics, (2) their opinions regarding overall use, safety, and efficacy of opioids compared to other analgesics, (3) specific clinical scenarios, (4) main pressures to prescribe opioids, and (5) confidence/comfort prescribing opioids or nonopioids in select situations. The majority of the sample (n = 363) were physicians (60.4 percent), with 69.4 percent of physicians being attendings. Most respondents believed that opioids were overused at our institution (61.7 percent); nearly half thought opioids had similar efficacy to other analgesics (44.1 percent), and almost all believed opioids were more dangerous than other analgesics (88.1 percent). Many respondents indicated that they would modify a chronic regimen for a high-risk patient, and use of nonopioids in specific scenarios was high. However, this use was often in combination with opioids. Respondents identified patients (64 percent) and staff (43.1 percent) as the most significant sources of pressure to prescribe opioids during an admission; the most common sources of pressure to prescribe opioids on discharge were to facilitate discharge (44.8 percent) and to reduce follow-up requests, calls, or visits (36.3 percent). Resident physicians appear to experience more pressure to prescribe opioids than other providers. Managing pain in patients with substance use disorders and effectively using nonopioid analgesics were the most common educational needs identified by respondents. Most individuals believe opioid analgesics are overused in our specific setting, commonly to satisfy patient requests. In general, providers feel uncomfortable prescribing nonopioid analgesics to patients.

Teaching Chronic Pain in the Family Medicine Residency.

Chronic pain is a significant condition affecting many Americans. Primary care physicians play an important role in chronic pain management, but many residents and physicians feel poorly prepared to manage it. Data were collected as part of the 2016 Council of Academic Family Medicine Educational Research Alliance (CERA) Program Director Survey, which was sent electronically to 484 program directors in the United States. The authors sought to determine whether residency directors' attitudes about treating chronic pain were associated with the amount of time devoted to teaching family medicine residents about chronic pain assessment, therapy (use of opioids, use adjuvant pain medications, use of other nonopioids, use of nonpharmacological treatments), and risk management (risk assessment, use of pain management contracts, informed consent when prescribing opioids, and urine drug monitoring). Attitudes were assessed by asking whether: (1) chronic pain is best managed by a primary care physician (PCP); (2) prescribing opioid medications is time consuming; (3) prescribing opioids is high-risk; (4) prescribing opioids contributes to opioid misuse; and (4) effective nonopioid treatments exist. An additional question assessed confidence in treating chronic pain. The response rate was 53%. The average family medicine residency devotes about 33 hours to education about pain management topics including 5.4 hours on chronic pain assessment, 16.2 hours on therapy, and 11.4 hours on risk assessment. Residency directors' belief that there are effective nonopioid treatments for chronic pain was the only attitude item that was associated with teaching about chronic pain. Residency directors' attitudes do not predict the time devoted to teaching chronic pain in family medicine residencies.

Prescription trajectories and effect of total hip arthroplasty on the use of analgesics, hypnotics, antidepressants, and anxiolytics

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) has been shown to reduce pain and improve function. In addition, it is suggested that THA improves sleep and alleviates symptoms of anxiety and depression. Patients with chronic pain are frequent users of analgesic and psychotropic drugs and thereby risk adverse drug events. The impact of THA on such drug use has not been thoroughly investigated. Based on merged data from the Norwegian Prescription Database and the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, this study sought to investigate redeemed medications in a complete population (N = 39,688) undergoing THA in 2005 to 2011. User rates and redeemed drug volume of analgesics (nonsteroid anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioids, and nonopioids) and psychotropics (hypnotics, anxiolytics, and antidepressants) were calculated for 4 quarters before and 4 quarters after surgery. We analysed preoperative prescription trends (Q1 vs Q4), postoperative prescription (Q4 vs Q5), and long-term effect of surgery (Q4 vs Q8). Before surgery, use of all drug groups increased from Q1 to Q4. Use of opioids, nonopioids, and hypnotics dramatically increased from Q4 to Q5. Long-term (Q4 vs Q8) surgery reduced prescriptions of analgesics, hypnotics, and anxiolytics, but not antidepressants. Overall, the present results extend the positive effects of THA to include reduced reliance on medication to alleviate symptoms.

Polypharmacy in Patients With Advanced Cancer and Pain: A European Cross-Sectional Study of 2282 Patients

ContextPatients with advanced cancer need multiple drugs to control symptoms and to treat cancer and concomitant diseases. At the same time, the goal of treatment changes as life expectancy becomes limited. This results in a risk for polypharmacy, maintained use of unneeded drugs, and drug-drug interactions (DDIs). ObjectivesThe aim of the study was to analyze the use of medications and to identify unneeded drugs, and drugs and drug combinations with a risk for DDIs in a cohort of advanced cancer pain patients, defined by a need for a World Health Organization analgesic ladder Step III opioid. MethodsAll drugs taken within a study day by cancer patients receiving opioids for moderate or severe pain (Step III opioids) were analyzed. Nonopioids and adjuvants were analyzed for their use across countries. Unneeded medications and drugs and drug combinations with a risk for pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic DDIs were identified on the basis of published literature and electronic resources. ResultsIn total, 2282 patients from 17 centers in 11 European countries were included. They received a mean of 7.8 drugs (range 1–20). Over one-quarter used 10 or more medications. The drugs and drug classes most frequently coadministered with opioids were proton pump inhibitors, laxatives, corticosteroids, paracetamol (acetaminophen), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, metoclopramide, benzodiazepines, anticoagulants, antibiotics, anticonvulsants, diuretics, and antidepressants. The use of nonopioids and essential adjuvants varied across countries. Approximately 45% of patients received unnecessary or potentially unnecessary drugs, and about 7% were given duplicate or antagonizing agents. Exposures to DDIs were frequent and increased the risk of sedation, gastric ulcerations, bleedings, and neuropsychiatric and cardiac complications. Many patients were exposed to pharmacokinetic DDIs involving cytochrome P450, including about 58% who used a Step III opioid CYP3A4 (izoenzyme of cytochrome P450) substrate, and more than 10% who were given major CYP3A4 inhibitors or inducers. ConclusionPatients with cancer treated with a World Health Organization Step III opioid use a high number of drugs. Nonopioid analgesics and corticosteroids are frequently used, but different patterns of use between countries were found. Many patients receive unneeded drugs and are at risk of serious DDIs. These findings demonstrate that drug therapy in these patients needs to be evaluated continuously.

Sedation, Analgesia, and Local Anesthesia: A Review for General and Interventional Radiologists

Radiologists, like other physicians, need to know how to use sedatives, analgesics, and local anesthetics; however, their exposure to patients requiring discomfort control is limited, not just during residency but also in postgraduate practice. The purpose of this article is to provide a reference guide for radiologists who need pertinent and ready information on discomfort control. The authors discuss policies and standards that the Joint Commission has established for sedation providers; also discussed are the clinical pharmacology and dosage recommendations for the sedative, analgesic, anesthetic, and reversal agents that radiologists are most likely to use. Monitored anesthesia care and patient-controlled analgesia pumps, and in what circumstances they may be appropriate, are discussed. Anesthesia consultations are not uncommon when a nonanesthesiologist needs either of these services. Stiff chest syndrome, serotonin release syndrome, and systemic toxicity due to local anesthesia, all life-threatening conditions that sedation and analgesia providers may encounter, are discussed. The causes of these conditions and their necessary treatments are included in the discussion, along with cases in which a nonanesthesiologist may need an anesthesia consultation. It is important to understand that the control of pain and anxiety are not mutually exclusive but can occur either separately or together; when an agent that controls anxiety and an agent that controls pain are given together, the overall effect is synergistic. It is also important to understand the concept of multimodal analgesia; this is the use of opioids and nonopioids together to take full advantage of the analgesic effects of each component while minimizing potential side effects. Radiologists are fully capable of providing effective and safe pain control on their own and with the assistance of an anesthesiologist.

Early adjuvant use of nonopioids associated with reduced odds of serious postoperative opioid adverse events and need for rescue in children

Examine factors associated with opioid adverse drug events (ADE) in children. Examine whether adjuvant nonopioid use is associated with a decreased probability of opioid-ADEs and need for rescue. Opioid-ADEs contribute to serious preventable harm for hospitalized children. Adjuvant nonopioid use may mitigate opioid risk postoperatively, yet few studies support this notion. This nested case-control study included children who required intervention or rescue from opioid-ADEs and procedure-matched controls. Data were recorded from medical records and primary outcomes included serious opioid-ADEs (over-sedation and respiratory depression) and need for rescue (e.g., naloxone, rapid response team). Hierarchical logistic regression (HLR) models examined relationships between factors and opioid-ADEs. Early clinical signs and symptoms of deterioration were examined. Twenty five children with opioid-ADEs and 98 children without events were included. ASA-PS remained an independent risk factor (odds ratio, 2.56 [1.09, 6.03]; P = 0.031), while adjuvant nonopioids a risk reduction factor for opioid-ADEs (OR, 0.16 [0.05, 0.47]; P = 0.001) and need for rescue (0.14 [0.04, 0.47]; P = 0.001). Supplemental oxygen use at PACU discharge was associated with an increased odds of opioid-ADEs (OR, 3.72 [1.35, 10.23]; P = 0.007) and need for rescue (5.5 [1.7, 17.82]; P = 0.002). Findings from this study suggest that strategies such as early use of adjuvant nonopioids may reduce risk of opioid-ADEs postoperatively. Furthermore, children who require supplemental oxygen early postoperatively may be at heightened risk of later events.

Determination of substance overdose in two Iranian centers: Comparison between opioids and non-opioids

Recently, new trend toward non-opioid substances is observed in Iran. This is, therefore, to compare overdose of opioids and non-opioids origin. We performed this investigation to provide more detailed information so that preventive actions are taken in future. Over 18 month, 1876 individuals with opioid (opium, heroin, compact-heroin, buprenorphine and opiates) or non-opioid (MDMA (ecstasy), LSD, hashish and cocaine) overdose were selected. They have been compared regarding sex, age, reason of overdose, method of substance use, occupation, marital status, history of addiction in parents/siblings, duration of hospital admission and educational level. There were 1782 and 94 persons with opioid and non-opioid, respectively. Inhalation was the method of choice and women were found to have more tendencies to hallucinogens rather opioids. Moreover, use of non-opioids was observed more in individuals with university education and moreover in whom none of whose parents/siblings was addict. Policies should be planned by the governments to prevent further addictions especially to non-opioids.

Methadone Induced Hyperalgesia: Is It Possible? (775)

1.Recognition of opioid induced hyperalgesia (OIH) as a possible complication of pain management with opioids.Review of opioids that can induce OIH.2.Review of treatment options available for OIH. Opioid induced hyperalgesia (OIH) is characterized by paradoxical worsening of pain despite escalating doses of opioids. It can pose a significant challenge to pain management. The management of OIH usually requires decreasing the dose of opiates, opiate rotation and the use of non-opioids. Although OIH has been generally recognized in patients with chronic use of morphine or hydromorphone, we present a case of OIH most likely induced by methadone. The patient is a 64 year-old male with severe COPD and a remote history of polysubstance abuse, hospitalized for pneumonia and chronic low back pain secondary to osteoarthritis. His past medical history was significant for type 2 diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease and hepatitis C. While in the hospital, he sustained a mechanical fall resulting in left tibial and fibular fractures, treated conservatively with a long cast and non-weight bearing status. Prior to admission he was taking acetaminophen/codeine for low back pain. After the fracture, he was tried on various opioid regimens to control a flare-up of the low back pain and his painful fractured leg. Due to uncontrolled back and leg pain, methadone and hydromorphone were initiated. While on methadone 5 mg orally three times a day and hydromorphone 1 mg orally every 4 hours for breakthrough pain for one week, he developed severe pain in the cervical spine, low back, hips and left lower leg. He also developed mild confusion and myoclonus which were thought to be secondary to opioids. The dose of methadone was decreased to 2.5 mg twice a day and within 48hrs he had a remarkable improvement in his pain, and his confusion and myoclonus resolved. The remarkable improvement in pain control following a reduction the in dose of methadone suggests the clinical scenario of OIH induced by methadone.

Postoperative pain assessment after septorhinoplasty

Postoperative pain after septorhinoplasty and its optimal management has not been described in detail. Fifty-two adult septorhinoplasty patients were included in a prospective cohort single center study. Patients' and surgical characteristics were evaluated. Outcome and process parameters were analyzed using the questionnaires of the German-wide project Quality Improvement in Postoperative Pain Management (QUIPS) on the first postoperative day. Pain during the first operative day after septorhinoplasty was moderate. Pain management predominately consisted of remifentanil intraoperatively, metamizole in the recovery room, in combination with piritramide in one-third of the patients, and metamizole on ward. Patients younger than 31 years were less satisfied with pain management (P = 0.018). Open rhinoplasty was associated with less satisfaction with pain management (P = 0.007). Use of rib grafts led to more mobility, breathing, sleeping and mood disturbances (P = 0.003, 0.047; 0.047; 0.022, respectively). Preoperative pain counseling was followed by higher satisfaction, less breathing and mood disturbances after surgery (P = 0.021; 0.004; 0.046, respectively). Opioids in the recovery room in addition to non-opioids and treatment with non-opioids on ward led to less maximal pain (P = 0.027 and 0.040, respectively). We conclude that QUIPS is an easy tool to evaluate the quality of postoperative pain management following rhinoplasty. Preoperative pain counseling, specific care for patients with rib grafts, consequent use of opioids in the recovery room in addition to non-opioids, and use of non-opioids on ward seem to be effective to improve pain management after septorhinoplasty.

Which variables are associated with pain intensity and treatment response in advanced cancer patients? – Implications for a future classification system for cancer pain

Background This study is part of a research program to reach consensus on an international cancer pain classification system. A confirmative and explorative approach was applied to investigate which of the variables identified in the literature, by experts and patients that are associated with pain. Methods Data from an international, multicentre, cross-sectional study of cancer patients treated with opioids were investigated. Dependent variables were: average pain, worst pain, and pain relief (11-point Numerical Rating Scales). Forty-six independent variables were chosen based upon previous studies. Bivariate analyses identified independent variables associated with at least one of the dependent ones; 21 were included in multivariate linear regression analyses. Results Two thousand two hundred and seventy-eight patients were investigated; 52% males, mean age 62 years, mean Karnofsky Performance Status 59%, mean daily opioid oral equivalent dose 341 mg. Fifty-eight percent had breakthrough pain. Mean pain scores were: average pain 3.5, worst pain 5.3 and pain relief 74%. Variables most strongly associated with these three dependent variables were: breakthrough pain, psychological distress, sleep, and opioid dose. Conclusions Breakthrough pain and psychological distress were confirmed as key variables of a future classification system. Candidate variables were: sleep, opioid dose, pain mechanism, use of non-opioids, pain localisation, cancer diagnosis, location of metastases, and addiction.