Stated preferences of physicians and chronic pain sufferers in the use of classic strong opioids

Patient Preferences for Rescue Medications in the Treatment of Breakthrough Cancer Pain

OBJECTIVE

The discrete choice experiment (DCE) is conducted in this study to discuss Chinese cancer patients' risk-benefit preferences for rescue medications (RD) and their willingness to pay (WTP) in the treatment of breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP).

METHOD

Through literature reviews, specialist consultation, and patient surveys, this work finally included five attributes in the DCE questionnaire, i.e., the remission time of breakthrough pain, adverse reactions of the digestive system, adverse reactions of the neuropsychiatric system, administration routes, and drug costs (estimating patients' WTP). The alternative-specific conditional logit model is used to analyze patients' preferences and WTP for each attribute and its level and to assess the sociodemographic impact and clinical characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 134 effective questionnaires were collected from January, 1 to April, 5 in 2022. Results show that the five attributes all have a significant impact on cancer patients' choice of "rescue medications" (P<0.05). Among these attributes, the remission time after drug administration (10.0; 95%CI 8.5-11.5) is the most important concern for patients, followed by adverse reactions of the digestive system (8.5; 95%CI 7.0-10.0), adverse reactions of the neuropsychiatric system (2.9; 95%CI 1.4-4.3), and administration routes (0.9; 95%CI 0-1.8). The respondents are willing to spend 1182 yuan (95%CI 605-1720 yuan) per month for "rescue medications" to take effect within 15 minutes and spend 1002 yuan (95%CI 605-1760 yuan) per month on reducing the incidence of drug-induced adverse reactions in the digestive system to 5%.

CONCLUSION

For Chinese cancer patients, especially those with moderate/severe cancer pain, the priority is to relieve the BTcP more rapidly and reduce adverse drug reactions more effectively. This study indicates these patients' expectations for the quick control of breakthrough pain and their emphasis on the reduction of adverse reactions. These findings are useful for doctors, who are encouraged to communicate with cancer patients about how to better alleviate the BTcP.

Benefit-risk assessment and reporting in clinical trials of chronic pain treatments: IMMPACT recommendations

ABSTRACT

Chronic pain clinical trials have historically assessed benefit and risk outcomes separately. However, a growing body of research suggests that a composite metric that accounts for benefit and risk in relation to each other can provide valuable insights into the effects of different treatments. Researchers and regulators have developed a variety of benefit-risk composite metrics, although the extent to which these methods apply to randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of chronic pain has not been evaluated in the published literature. This article was motivated by an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials consensus meeting and is based on the expert opinion of those who attended. In addition, a review of the benefit-risk assessment tools used in published chronic pain RCTs or highlighted by key professional organizations (ie, Cochrane, European Medicines Agency, Outcome Measures in Rheumatology, and U.S. Food and Drug Administration) was completed. Overall, the review found that benefit-risk metrics are not commonly used in RCTs of chronic pain despite the availability of published methods. A primary recommendation is that composite metrics of benefit-risk should be combined at the level of the individual patient, when possible, in addition to the benefit-risk assessment at the treatment group level. Both levels of analysis (individual and group) can provide valuable insights into the relationship between benefits and risks associated with specific treatments across different patient subpopulations. The systematic assessment of benefit-risk in clinical trials has the potential to enhance the clinical meaningfulness of RCT results.

Dynamics of Patient-Based Benefit-Risk Assessment of Medicines in Chronic Diseases: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

A critical gap exits in understanding the dynamics of patient-based benefit-risk assessment (BRA) of medicines in chronic diseases during the disease journey.

PURPOSE

To systematically review and synthesize current evidence on the changes of patients' preferences about the benefits and risks of medicines during their disease journey including the influence of disease duration and severity, and previous treatment experience.

METHODS

A systematic review of studies identified in PubMed and Embase, from inception to November 2020, was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement. Articles were eligible if they analyzed adult patient-based BRA of medicines with a chronic disease, based on at least one of the pre-specified dimensions: disease severity, disease duration, or previous treatment experience.

RESULTS

A total of 26,228 articles were identified and 105 were eligible for inclusion. Of these, 85 detected a variation in patient-based BRA of medicines with at least one of the pre-specified criteria. Patients with higher disease severity and more treatment experience have increased risk tolerance. It remains inconclusive whether disease duration directly affects the relative importance of a patient's preference.

CONCLUSION

Factors important for patients' BRA of their medicines during a chronic disease journey vary more with their clinical situation and previous treatment experience than with time since diagnosis. Due to the importance of these factors on patients' perspectives and potential impact on their decision-making and eventually their clinical outcomes, there is a need for more studies to assess the dynamics of patients' BRA in every disease.

Attributes Underlying Non-surgical Treatment Choice for People With Low Back Pain: A Systematic Mixed Studies Review

BACKGROUND

The knowledge of patients' preferences in the medical decision-making process is gaining in importance. In this article we aimed to provide an overview on the importance of attributes underlying the choice of non-surgical treatments in people with low back pain (LBP). Methods: A systematic mixed studies review was conducted. Articles were retrieved from the search engines PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Scopus through June 21, 2018. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used to assess the quality of the study, and each step was performed by 2 reviewers.

ANALYSIS

From a total of 390 articles, 13 were included in the systematic review, all of which were considered to be of good quality. Up to 40 attributes were found in studies using various methods. Effectiveness, ie, pain reduction, was the most important attribute considered by patients in their choice of treatment. This attribute was cited by 7 studies and was systematically ranked first or second in each. Other important attributes included the capacity to realize daily life activities, fit to patient's life, and the credibility of the treatment, among others.

DISCUSSION

Pain reduction was the most important attribute underlying patients' choice for treatment. However, this was not the only trait, and future research is needed to determine the relative importance of the attributes.

Patient and provider differences in the treatment of opioid-induced constipation: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Patients using opioids to treat chronic non-cancer pain often experience side effects that may affect health-related quality of life (HRQOL). These side effects include opioid-induced constipation (OIC), sedation, dizziness, and nausea. OIC can significantly affect HRQOL for patients on a daily basis. However, it is not well understood whether patients and clinicians view OIC management similarly.

AIMS

In this study, we sought to elucidate the decision-making process around managing OIC by assessing patient and provider treatment preferences, experiences, and communication regarding this condition.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with 33 clinicians, and held three focus groups with patients who were currently using or had used opioids for chronic non-cancer pain. We then analyzed transcribed interviews using descriptive qualitative methods based on grounded theory methodology.

RESULTS

Clinicians recognized OIC as a concern but prioritized pain management over constipation. They focused on medication-based treatments for OIC, but also recommended lifestyle changes (e.g., diet) and reducing opioids to relieve symptoms. Patients reported using over-the-counter treatments, but the majority focused on diet-related constipation management. Patients reported not receiving adequate information from clinicians about OIC and relevant treatments. Cost of treatment was a major concern for both patients and clinicians.

CONCLUSIONS

Assessing experiences with and preferences for OIC treatment, including cost, ease of access, and side effects, could improve patient-provider communication and HRQOL. Quality improvement efforts can target uncovered misalignments between patients and clinicians to improve communication about opioid medication adverse effects and relevant treatment options, which may help improve quality of life for patients with chronic pain.

What attributes should be included in a discrete choice experiment related to health technologies? A systematic literature review

Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are a way to assess priority-setting in health care provision. This approach allows for the evaluation of individuals’ preferences as a means of adding criteria to traditional quality-adjusted life year analysis. The aim of this systematic literature review was to identify attributes for designing a DCE in order to then develop and validate a framework that supports decision-making on health technologies. Our systematic literature review replicated the methods and search terms used by de Bekker-Grob et al. 2012 and Clark et al. 2014. The Medline database was searched for articles dated between 2008 and 2015. The search was limited to studies in English that reflected general preferences and were choice-based, published as full-text articles and related to health technologies. This study included 72 papers, 52% of which focused on DCEs on drug treatments. The average number of attributes used in all included DCE studies was 5.74 (SD 1.98). The most frequently used attributes in these DCEs were improvements in health (78%), side effects (57%) and cost of treatment (53%). Other, less frequently used attributes included waiting time for treatment or duration of treatment (25%), severity of disease (7%) and value for money (4%). The attributes identified might inform future DCE surveys designed to study societal preferences regarding health technologies in order to better inform decisions in health technology assessment.

A meta-ethnography of health-care professionals’ experience of treating adults with chronic non-malignant pain to improve the experience and quality of health care

Background

People with chronic pain do not always feel that they are being listened to or valued by health-care professionals (HCPs). We aimed to understand and improve this experience by finding out what HCPs feel about providing health care to people with chronic non-malignant pain. We did this by bringing together the published qualitative research.

Objectives

(1) To undertake a qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) to increase our understanding of what it is like for HCPs to provide health care to people with chronic non-malignant pain; (2) to make our findings easily available and accessible through a short film; and (3) to contribute to the development of methods for QESs.

Design

We used the methods of meta-ethnography, which involve identifying concepts and progressively abstracting these concepts into a line of argument.

Data sources

We searched five electronic bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO and Allied and Complementary Medicine Database) from inception to November 2016. We included studies that explored HCPs’ experiences of providing health care to people with chronic non-malignant pain. We utilised the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (GRADE-CERQual) framework to rate our confidence in the findings.

Results

We screened 954 abstracts and 184 full texts and included 77 studies reporting the experiences of > 1551 HCPs. We identified six themes: (1) a sceptical cultural lens and the siren song of diagnosis; (2) navigating juxtaposed models of medicine; (3) navigating the patient–clinician borderland; (4) the challenge of dual advocacy; (5) personal costs; and (6) the craft of pain management. We produced a short film, ‘Struggling to support people to live a valued life with chronic pain’, which presents these themes (seeReport Supplementary Material 1; URL:www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/programmes/hsdr/1419807/#/documentation; accessed 24 July 2017). We rated our confidence in the review findings using the GRADE-CERQual domains. We developed a conceptual model to explain the complexity of providing health care to people with chronic non-malignant pain. The innovation of this model is to propose a series of tensions that are integral to the experience: a dualistic biomedical model compared with an embodied psychosocial model; professional distance compared with proximity; professional expertise compared with patient empowerment; the need to make concessions to maintain therapeutic relationships compared with the need for evidence-based utility; and patient advocacy compared with health-care system advocacy.

Limitations

There are no agreed methods for determining confidence in QESs.

Conclusions

We highlight areas that help us to understand why the experience of health care can be difficult for patients and HCPs. Importantly, HCPs can find it challenging if they are unable to find a diagnosis and at times this can make them feel sceptical. The findings suggest that HCPs find it difficult to balance their dual role of maintaining a good relationship with the patient and representing the health-care system. The ability to support patients to live a valued life with pain is described as a craft learnt through experience. Finally, like their patients, HCPs can experience a sense of loss because they cannot solve the problem of pain.

Future work

Future work to explore the usefulness of the conceptual model and film in clinical education would add value to this study. There is limited primary research that explores HCPs’ experiences with chronic non-malignant pain in diverse ethnic groups, in gender-specific contexts and in older people living in the community.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Meta-ethnography to understand healthcare professionals' experience of treating adults with chronic non-malignant pain

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to explore healthcare professionals' experience of treating chronic non-malignant pain by conducting a qualitative evidence synthesis. Understanding this experience from the perspective of healthcare professionals will contribute to improvements in the provision of care.

DESIGN

Qualitative evidence synthesis using meta-ethnography. We searched five electronic bibliographic databases from inception to November 2016. We included studies that explore healthcare professionals' experience of treating adults with chronic non-malignant pain. We used the GRADE-CERQual framework to rate confidence in review findings.

RESULTS

We screened the 954 abstracts and 184 full texts and included 77 published studies reporting the experiences of over 1551 international healthcare professionals including doctors, nurses and other health professionals. We abstracted six themes: (1) a sceptical cultural lens, (2) navigating juxtaposed models of medicine, (3) navigating the geography between patient and clinician, (4) challenge of dual advocacy, (5) personal costs and (6) the craft of pain management. We rated confidence in review findings as moderate to high.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first qualitative evidence synthesis of healthcare professionals' experiences of treating people with chronic non-malignant pain. We have presented a model that we developed to help healthcare professionals to understand, think about and modify their experiences of treating patients with chronic pain. Our findings highlight scepticism about chronic pain that might explain why patients feel they are not believed. Findings also indicate a dualism in the biopsychosocial model and the complexity of navigating therapeutic relationships. Our model may be transferable to other patient groups or situations.

Do patients and health care providers have discordant preferences about which aspects of treatments matter most? Evidence from a systematic review of discrete choice experiments

OBJECTIVES

To review studies eliciting patient and healthcare provider preferences for healthcare interventions using discrete choice experiments (DCEs) to (1) review the methodology to evaluate similarities, differences, rigour of designs and whether comparisons are made at the aggregate level or account for individual heterogeneity; and (2) quantify the extent to which they demonstrate concordance of patient and healthcare provider preferences.

METHODS

A systematic review searching Medline, EMBASE, Econlit, PsycINFO and Web of Science for DCEs using patient and healthcare providers.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

peer-reviewed; complete empiric text in English from 1995 to 31July 2015; discussing a healthcare-related topic; DCE methodology; comparing patients and healthcare providers.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

RESULTS

We identified 38 papers exploring 16 interventions in 26 diseases/indications. Methods to analyse results, determine concordance between patient and physician values, and explore heterogeneity varied considerably between studies. The majority of studies we reviewed found more evidence of mixed concordance and discordance (n=28) or discordance of patient and healthcare provider preferences (n=12) than of concordant preferences (n=4). A synthesis of concordance suggested that healthcare providers rank structure and outcome attributes more highly than patients, while patients rank process attributes more highly than healthcare providers.

CONCLUSIONS

Discordant patient and healthcare provider preferences for different attributes of healthcare interventions are common. Concordance varies according to whether attributes are processes, structures or outcomes, and therefore determining preference concordance should consider all aspects jointly and not a binary outcome. DCE studies provide excellent opportunities to assess value concordance between patients and providers, but assessment of concordance was limited by a lack of consistency in the approaches used and consideration of heterogeneity of preferences. Future DCEs assessing concordance should fully report the framing of the questions and investigate the heterogeneity of preferences within groups and how these compare.

Salient concerns in using analgesia for cancer pain among outpatients: A cluster analysis study

AIM

To identify unique clusters of patients based on their concerns in using analgesia for cancer pain and predictors of the cluster membership.

METHODS

This was a 3-mo prospective observational study (n = 207). Patients were included if they were adults (≥ 18 years), diagnosed with solid tumors or multiple myelomas, and had at least one prescription of around-the-clock pain medication for cancer or cancer-treatment-related pain. Patients were recruited from two outpatient medical oncology clinics within a large health system in Philadelphia. A choice-based conjoint (CBC) analysis experiment was used to elicit analgesic treatment preferences (utilities). Patients employed trade-offs based on five analgesic attributes (percent relief from analgesics, type of analgesic, type of side-effects, severity of side-effects, out of pocket cost). Patients were clustered based on CBC utilities using novel adaptive statistical methods. Multiple logistic regression was used to identify predictors of cluster membership.

RESULTS

The analyses found 4 unique clusters: Most patients made trade-offs based on the expectation of pain relief (cluster 1, 41%). For a subset, the main underlying concern was type of analgesic prescribed, i.e., opioid vs non-opioid (cluster 2, 11%) and type of analgesic side effects (cluster 4, 21%), respectively. About one in four made trade-offs based on multiple concerns simultaneously including pain relief, type of side effects, and severity of side effects (cluster 3, 28%). In multivariable analysis, to identify predictors of cluster membership, clinical and socioeconomic factors (education, health literacy, income, social support) rather than analgesic attitudes and beliefs were found important; only the belief, i.e., pain medications can mask changes in health or keep you from knowing what is going on in your body was found significant in predicting two of the four clusters [cluster 1 (-); cluster 4 (+)].

CONCLUSION

Most patients appear to be driven by a single salient concern in using analgesia for cancer pain. Addressing these concerns, perhaps through real time clinical assessments, may improve patients’ analgesic adherence patterns and cancer pain outcomes.

Unmet clinical needs in the management of advanced melanoma: findings from a survey of oncologists

Advanced melanoma is a life-threatening cancer with limited life expectancy. The recent introduction of new targeted systemic therapies has provided clinicians with the means to potentially extend survival for the first time. However, the chance of cure remains very low and treatment-induced toxicity is well described. This qualitative study was undertaken to evaluate clinicians' assessment regarding the key concerns in managing advanced melanoma following the introduction of these new treatments. Three hundred and forty-three oncologists were surveyed online between August and November 2012 (in 11 countries) and March and April 2013 (in an additional country). Analysis of free-text responses identified 23 clinical issues of concern across all countries. Of these, the most common clinical concerns were drug toxicity and tolerability, followed by limited treatment effectiveness and limited treatment options. These results suggest that despite the promise of the two new agents in the field, clinicians are still concerned about the limitations of current treatment options, recognising that there remains a significant unmet need in the treatment of advanced melanoma.

Acupuncture or low frequency infrared treatment for low back pain in Chinese patients: a discrete choice experiment

Acupuncture is a popular but controversial treatment option for low back pain. In China, it is practised as traditional Chinese medicine; other treatment strategies for low back pain are commonly practised as Western medicine. Research on patient preference for low back-pain treatment options has been mainly conducted in Western countries and is limited to a willingness-to-pay approach. A stated-preference, discrete choice experiment was conducted to determine Chinese patient preferences and trade-offs for acupuncture and low frequency infrared treatment in low back pain from September 2011 to August 2012 after approval from the Department of Scientific Research in the study settings. Eight-six adult outpatients who visited the 'traditional medicine department' at a traditional Chinese medicine hospital and the 'rehabilitation department' at a Western medicine hospital in Guangdong Province of China for chronic low back pain during study period participated in an interview survey. A questionnaire containing 10 scenarios (5 attributes in each scenario) was used to ask participants' preference for acupuncture, low frequency infrared treatment or neither option. Validated responses were analysed using a nested-logit model. The decision on whether to receive a therapy was not associated with the expected utility of receiving therapy, female gender and higher out-of-pocket payment significantly decreased chance to receive treatments. Of the utility of receiving either acupuncture or low frequency infrared treatment, the treatment sensation was the most important attribute as an indicator of treatment efficacy, followed by the maximum efficacy, maintenance duration and onset of efficacy, and the out-of-pocket payment. The willingness-to-pay for acupuncture and low frequency infrared treatment were about $618.6 and $592.4 USD per course respectively, demonstrated patients' demand of pain management. The treatment sensation was regarded as an indicator of treatment efficacy and the most important attribute for choosing acupuncture or low frequency infrared treatment. The high willingness-to-pay demonstrated patients' demand of pain management. However, there may be other factors influencing patients' preference to receive treatments.

Treatment patterns in advanced melanoma: findings from a survey of European oncologists

With the emergence of new therapies, established patterns of treating advanced melanoma are changing. The aim of this study was to understand how advanced melanoma is treated in clinical practice in Europe following the introduction of ipilimumab and vemurafenib. An online survey was conducted between August and November 2012 with 150 oncologists and dermatologists, from France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the U.K.; respondents reported treating the majority of patients with one or two lines of therapy. For BRAF mutant melanoma, the most frequently used first-line treatments were vemurafenib and dacarbazine. For BRAF wild-type melanoma, the most frequently used first-line treatment was dacarbazine. There was no single preferred agent for the second-line treatment of BRAF mutant or BRAF wild-type disease. Most sequencing from first- to second-line was from conventional dacarbazine to newer agents such as ipilimumab and vemurafenib. The treatment of advanced melanoma is rapidly evolving due to the introduction of new agents. This study presents an early insight into access to the new agents, ipilimumab and vemurafenib, and clinical practice in several European countries.

A holistic approach to chronic pain management that involves all stakeholders: change is needed

Chronic pain affects a large proportion of the population, imposing significant individual distress and a considerable burden on society, yet treatment is not always instituted and/or adequate. Comprehensive multidisciplinary management based on the biopsychosocial model of pain has been shown to be clinically effective and cost-efficient, but is not widely available. A literature review of stakeholder groups revealed many reasons for this, including: i) many patients believe healthcare professionals lack relevant knowledge, and consultations are rushed, ii) general practitioners consider that pain management has a low priority and is under-resourced, iii) pain specialists cite non-adherence to evidence-based treatment, sub-optimal prescribing, and chronic pain not being regarded as a disease in its own right, iv) nurses', pharmacists' and physiotherapists' skills are not fully utilized, and v) psychological therapy is employed infrequently and often too late. Many of the issues relating to physicians could be addressed by improving medical training, both at undergraduate and postgraduate levels - for example, by making pain medicine a compulsory core subject of the undergraduate medical curriculum. This would improve physician/patient communication, increase the use of standardized pain assessment tools, and allow more patients to participate in treatment decisions. Patient care would also benefit from improved training for other multidisciplinary team members; for example, nurses could provide counseling and follow-up support, psychologists offer coping skills training, and physiotherapists have a greater role in rehabilitation. Equally important measures include the widespread adoption of a patient-centered approach, chronic pain being recognized as a disease in its own right, and the development of universal guidelines for managing chronic non-cancer pain. Perhaps the greatest barrier to improvement is lack of political will at both national and international level. Some powerful initiatives and collaborations are currently lobbying policy-making bodies to raise standards and reduce unnecessary pain - it is vital they continue.

Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are increasingly used in health economics to address a wide range of health policy-related concerns.

OBJECTIVE

Broadly adopting the methodology of an earlier systematic review of health-related DCEs, which covered the period 2001-2008, we report whether earlier trends continued during 2009-2012.

METHODS

This paper systematically reviews health-related DCEs published between 2009 and 2012, using the same database as the earlier published review (PubMed) to obtain citations, and the same range of search terms.

RESULTS

A total of 179 health-related DCEs for 2009-2012 met the inclusion criteria for the review. We found a continuing trend towards conducting DCEs across a broader range of countries. However, the trend towards including fewer attributes was reversed, whilst the trend towards interview-based DCEs reversed because of increased computer administration. The trend towards using more flexible econometric models, including mixed logit and latent class, has also continued. Reporting of monetary values has fallen compared with earlier periods, but the proportion of studies estimating trade-offs between health outcomes and experience factors, or valuing outcomes in terms of utility scores, has increased, although use of odds ratios and probabilities has declined. The reassuring trend towards the use of more flexible and appropriate DCE designs and econometric methods has been reinforced by the increased use of qualitative methods to inform DCE processes and results. However, qualitative research methods are being used less often to inform attribute selection, which may make DCEs more susceptible to omitted variable bias if the decision framework is not known prior to the research project.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of DCEs in healthcare continues to grow dramatically, as does the scope of applications across an expanding range of countries. There is increasing evidence that more sophisticated approaches to DCE design and analytical techniques are improving the quality of final outputs. That said, recent evidence that the use of qualitative methods to inform attribute selection has declined is of concern.

A descriptive review on methods to prioritize outcomes in a health care context

BACKGROUND

Evidence synthesis has seen major methodological advances in reducing uncertainty and estimating the sizes of the effects. Much less is known about how to assess the relative value of different outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To identify studies that assessed preferences for outcomes in health conditions.

METHODS

SEARCH STRATEGY

we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library in February 2014.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

eligible studies investigated preferences of patients, family members, the general population or healthcare professionals for health outcomes. The intention of this review was to include studies which focus on theoretical alternatives; studies which assessed preferences for distinct treatments were excluded.

DATA EXTRACTION

study characteristics as study objective, health condition, participants, elicitation method, and outcomes assessed in the study were extracted.

MAIN RESULTS

One hundred and twenty-four studies were identified and categorized into four groups: (1) multi criteria decision analysis (MCDA) (n = 71), (2) rating or ranking (n = 25), (3) utility eliciting (n = 5) and (4) studies comparing different methods (n = 23). The number of outcomes assessed by method group varied. The comparison of different methods or subgroups within one study often resulted in different hierarchies of outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

A dominant method most suitable for application in evidence syntheses was not identified. As preferences of patients differ from those of other stakeholders (especially medical professionals), the choice of the group to be questioned is consequential. Further research needs to focus on validity and applicability of the identified methods.

Effects of acupuncture for cancer pain and quality of life - a case series

BACKGROUND

Many cancer patients seek complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) including acupuncture to manage their cancer-related symptoms or side effects of treatments. Acupuncture is used to manage cancer pain and improve quality of life (QoL). This study aimed to conduct a preliminary study on a case series to evaluate the feasibility of acupuncture for treating cancer pain and to collect preliminary data on the effectiveness of acupuncture in treating cancer pain and improving QoL.

METHODS

A semi-standardized acupuncture treatment comprising one to three treatment sessions (20-30 minutes per session) per week for 8 weeks was provided by four licensed acupuncturists, who had more than 5 years of clinical experience, at the University Health Center. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C3) and a visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain rating were used as the outcome measures to assess pain and QoL. Data were collected at baseline, immediately after 2, 4, 6, and 8 weeks of treatment and at 4 weeks after treatment completion (week 12).

RESULTS

Two males and five females with a median age of 66 years (range: 44-71 years) completed the study. For the VAS, the percentage of improvement ranged between 18% and 95%. The baseline mean raw score was reduced from 51 mm to 36 mm at the end of week 8 and to 23 mm at the end of week 12. The percentage of overall QoL improvement ranged between 20% and 100%. The mean raw score for QoL improved with time. The baseline score was increased from 55 to 69 at the end of treatment (week 8) and to 73 after the follow-up (week 12).

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot study on a case series showed that acupuncture might be beneficial for reducing pain and improving QoL in cancer patients.

Long-term opioid treatment of chronic nonmalignant pain: unproven efficacy and neglected safety?

BACKGROUND

For the past 30 years, opioids have been used to treat chronic nonmalignant pain. This study tests the following hypotheses: (1) there is no strong evidence-based foundation for the conclusion that long-term opioid treatment of chronic nonmalignant pain is effective; and (2) the main problem associated with the safety of such treatment - assessment of the risk of addiction - has been neglected.

METHODS

Scientometric analysis of the articles representing clinical research in this area was performed to assess (1) the quality of presented evidence (type of study); and (2) the duration of the treatment phase. The sufficiency of representation of addiction was assessed by counting the number of articles that represent (1) editorials; (2) articles in the top specialty journals; and (3) articles with titles clearly indicating that the addiction-related safety is involved (topic-in-title articles).

RESULTS

Not a single randomized controlled trial with opioid treatment lasting >3 months was found. All studies with a duration of opioid treatment ≥6 months (n = 16) were conducted without a proper control group. Such studies cannot provide the consistent good-quality evidence necessary for a strong clinical recommendation. There were profound differences in the number of addiction articles related specifically to chronic nonmalignant pain patients and to opioid addiction in general. An inadequate number of chronic pain-related publications were observed with all three types of counted articles: editorials, articles in the top specialty journals, and topic-in-title articles.

CONCLUSION

There is no strong evidence-based foundation for the conclusion that long-term opioid treatment of chronic nonmalignant pain is effective. The above identified signs indicating neglect of addiction associated with the opioid treatment of chronic nonmalignant pain were present.

Shared decision-making in the selection of outpatient analgesics for older individuals in the emergency department

OBJECTIVES

To assess the relationship between older adults' perceptions of shared decision-making in the selection of an analgesic to take at home for acute musculoskeletal pain and (1) patient satisfaction with the analgesic and (2) changes in pain scores at 1 week.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Single academic emergency department.

PARTICIPANTS

Individuals aged 65 and older with acute musculoskeletal pain.

MEASUREMENTS

Two components of shared decision-making were assessed: information provided to the patient about the medication choice and patient participation in the selection of the analgesic. Optimal satisfaction with the analgesic was defined as being "a lot" satisfied. Pain scores were assessed in the ED and at 1 week using a 0-to-10 scale.

RESULTS

Of 159 individuals reached by telephone, 111 met all eligibility criteria and completed the survey. Fifty-two percent of participants reported receiving information about pain medication options, and 31% reported participating in analgesic selection. Participants who received information were more likely to report optimal satisfaction with the pain medication than those who did not (67% vs 34%; P < .001). Participants who participated in the decision were also more likely to report optimal satisfaction with the analgesic (71% vs 43%; P = .008) and had a greater average decrease in pain score (4.1 vs 2.9; P = .05). After adjusting for measured confounders, participants who reported receiving information remained more likely to report optimal satisfaction with the analgesic (63% vs 38%; P = .04).

CONCLUSION

Shared decision-making in analgesic selection for older adults with acute musculoskeletal pain may improve outcomes.

Clinical simulation model of long-acting opioids for treatment of chronic non-cancer pain in the United States

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate costs and outcomes associated with initial tapentadol ER vs oxycodone CR for the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) in the US.

METHODS

This study developed a Monte-Carlo simulation based on the scientific foundation established by published models of long-acting opioids (LAO) in patients having moderate-to-severe CNCP. It estimates costs and outcomes associated with the use of tapentadol ER vs oxycodone CR over a 1-year period from the perspective of a US payer. LAO effectiveness and treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) rates are derived from clinical trials of tapentadol ER vs oxycodone CR; other inputs are based on published literature supplemented sparingly with clinical opinion. Sensitivity analyses consider the impact of real-world dosing patterns for LAO on treatment costs.

RESULTS

Initial tapentadol ER consistently demonstrates better outcomes than initial oxycodone CR (proportion of patients achieving adequate pain relief and no GI TEAE; acute TEAE-free days; days free of chronic constipation; quality-adjusted life days; productive working hours). While total costs with initial tapentadol ER are slightly (2.2%) higher than with initial oxycodone CR, nearly twice as many modeled patients in the initial tapentadol ER arm (29% vs 15%) achieve adequate pain relief and no GI TEAE compared to initial oxycodone CR. In sensitivity analyses, tapentadol ER becomes a dominant strategy when real-world dosing patterns are considered.

CONCLUSION

The additional costs to produce better outcomes (pain relief and no GI TEAE) associated with tapentadol ER are small in the context of double the likelihood of a patient response with tapentadol ER. When daily average consumption (DACON) for oxycodone CR is factored into the analysis, initial tapentadol ER becomes a dominant strategy. Our findings are both strengthened, and limited by the use of randomized trial-centric input parameters. These results should be validated as inputs from clinical practice settings become available.

Cost-effectiveness of tapentadol in severe chronic pain in Spain: a cost analysis of data from RCTs

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain is known to be a significant and common health problem. Tapentadol, a recently developed centrally active, oral analgesic agent is used to treat adults with severe chronic pain that can be adequately managed only with opioid analgesics. Tapentadol has been reported to provide an improved adverse-events (AE) profile compared with other potent opioid analgesics at similar levels of analgesia.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of tapentadol to that of opioids commonly used as first-line treatment of severe, chronic, nonmalignant pain from the perspective of the health care payer in Spain.

METHODS

A Markov state-transition model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of first-line treatment with tapentadol to that of oxycodone, morphine, and transdermal fentanyl (TDF) over a 1-year time horizon. Four health states were defined: (1) treatment discontinuation due to a severe AE; (2) treatment discontinuation due to a lack of efficacy; (3) occurrence of an AE that required medical treatment; and (4) no discontinuation and no AE. If a patient discontinued a treatment, he or she was switched to an alternative, second-line opioid. Data regarding efficacy, tolerability, and utility values (EQ-5D) were derived from randomized clinical trials. Clinical experts estimated the rates of switching to other opioids and the health care resource utilization associated with the treatment of severe chronic pain. Unit costs were derived from public price lists/tariff works and were calculated from the perspective of the National Spanish Health System. The robustness of the model results was tested in extensive sensitivity analyses in which event probabilities, costs, utilities, and treatment-switching rates were altered.

RESULTS

Data from 3 studies (1981 patients) were included in the model. Overall, the model predicted that initiating first-line treatment with tapentadol in patients with severe, chronic, nonmalignant pain was associated with lower costs and greater efficacy versus first-line treatment with oxycodone. Compared with morphine and TDF, tapentadol yielded incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of €2656 and €2069 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, respectively. On extensive 1-way and scenario analyses, findings on the cost-effectiveness of tapentadol were consistent. The probability that tapentadol would be cost-effective compared with each comparator at the willingness-to-pay threshold of €20,000 to €30,000/QALY gained exceeded 90%.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the findings from the present model, tapentadol is likely to be a cost-effective first-line treatment in patients with severe, chronic, nonmalignant pain in Spain according to the commonly accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds. Compared with morphine and TDF, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were low; compared with oxycodone, tapentadol dominated, showing better quality-of-life outcomes at lower costs.