Role of pharmacists in optimising opioid therapy for chronic non-malignant pain; A systematic review

Proactive clinical review of patients taking opioid medicines long term for persistent pain led by clinical pharmacists in primary care teams (PROMPPT): a non-randomised mixed methods feasibility study

BACKGROUND

Given the poor long-term effectiveness of opioids for persistent non-cancer pain, and their potential for harm, evidence-based interventions to address opioid overprescribing for persistent pain are needed. This study aimed to explore the acceptability and feasibility of a primary care practice pharmacist-led intervention (PROMPPT review) for patients prescribed opioids for persistent pain and the feasibility of evaluating PROMPPT in a definitive trial.

METHODS

A single-arm study, with mixed methods process evaluation, was conducted in four English primary care practices. Adults prescribed opioids for ≥ 6 months were invited to participate in the Management of Opioids and Persistent Pain (MOPP) study by completing baseline and 3-month follow-up questionnaires. Practices invited a representative sample of MOPP participants to schedule a PROMPPT review, eight of which were audio-recorded. Following the review, pharmacists completed intervention delivery templates, and participants were sent an Acceptability Questionnaire and invited to consent to an interview.

RESULTS

Between November 2020 and May 2021, 148 participants were recruited to the MOPP study. Of these, 123 (83%) completed 3-month follow-up. Of 88 MOPP participants invited for a PROMPPT review, 80 (91%) attended. The review was rated completely acceptable or acceptable in 90% (45/50) of acceptability questionnaires returned. Overall, participants interviewed (n = 15) perceived the review as a good idea and recommended it to others; they preferred face-to-face consultations. Prior to the review, they reported mixed feelings, including feeling 'pleased' to be invited and 'grateful' someone was taking an interest, alongside concerns about what would happen during the review, including opioids being stopped and changes being detrimental. Following the review, those with a clear plan for follow-up/access to the pharmacist felt reassured about making changes to their pain medicines, whilst those advised to arrange follow-up as needed were less satisfied and more likely to report confusion about the plan.

CONCLUSIONS

PROMPPT reviews appeared acceptable to patients, review uptake was high, and the study demonstrated the feasibility of a large definitive trial to evaluate PROMPPT. The review invitation, patient information, and pharmacist training were refined based on the findings ahead of a large cluster randomised controlled trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN, ISRCTN87628403 , registered 31 July 2020.

Pharmacist interventions in optimising opioid medication therapy in pain management for palliative care patients: A systematic review

BackgroundOpioid therapy is a critical component in managing pain in palliative care, where pharmacists' specialised expertise is crucial in ensuring quality care for patients. This systematic review aims to document available evidence on pharmacist interventions and their impact on optimising opioid therapy for pain management in palliative care patients.MethodsWe searched Medline (OVID), Embase (OVID), APA PsycINFO and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) for relevant articles published from the beginning to 31st December, 2022. All original studies documenting pharmacists' intervention and impact in optimising patients receiving opioid therapy for their pain management in palliative care settings were included in this review.ResultsThe database and reference search yielded to a total of 7154 studies. Out of these, only 3 studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in this study. These studies were conducted in Korea, Canada and United States. Pharmacists were involved in assessing pain, suggesting medication for pain and other symptom management, providing patient education, counselling and recommendation, assessing patient's medication effects such as adverse effects, drug interaction and duplication, and adjusting medication. Similarly, their involvement showed improvements in pain management, opioid usage and management strategies.ConclusionThis systematic review highlights the important role of pharmacists in optimising opioid medication therapy for pain management in palliative care patients. Their contributions to palliative patient care improve pain outcomes and overall quality of life. Integrating pharmacists into palliative care teams can enhance pain management practices and provide better care for palliative patients. Further studies accompanying the robust methodologies and broader settings will validate the findings of this review.

Resentful, Resigned and Respectful: Opioid Analgesics, Pain and Control, a Qualitative Study

Opioid analgesic prescribing has increased significantly with associated concerns about dependence and overdose. This study aimed to explore non-cancer patients' experiences and views of taking opioid analgesics to manage their pain. Twenty-two patients were purposively sampled from English GP practices and participated in semi-structured telephone interviews. Braun and Clarke's thematic analysis was used to generate emerging latent and semantic themes. Patients resented taking opioid analgesics due to tolerance and addiction fears but were resigned to experiencing chronic pain. Control emerged in relation to patients' acceptance of doctors' control over treatment decisions but also patients' attempted self-control over medicine adherence. This involved negatively perceived attempts to control pain but also prevent tolerance and addiction. Non-pharmacological treatments were viewed negatively by patients and addiction awareness arose from various sources. Patients were respectful of doctors but expressed negativity about the lack of addiction warnings, medication reviews and appointments. Family and friends were infrequently mentioned, as was reference to shared decision-making, suggesting patients navigate control over opioids and pain in relatively isolated ways. Patients reported generally negative experiences of opioid use for pain, which provides key insights for health professionals to enhance understanding and the management of such patients.

Primary care-based interventions for secondary prevention of opioid dependence in patients with chronic non-cancer pain taking pharmaceutical opioids: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Globally, almost one-third of adults with chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) are prescribed opioids. Prevention of opioid dependence among these patients is a public health priority.

AIM

To synthesise the evidence on the effectiveness of primary care-based interventions for secondary prevention of opioid dependence in patients with CNCP who are taking pharmaceutical opioids.

DESIGN & SETTING

Systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative non-randomised studies of interventions from high-income countries.

METHOD

We searched five databases for studies on non-tapering secondary prevention interventions, such as tools for predicting dependence, screening tools for early recognition of dependence, monitoring of prescribing or medication, and specialist support. We examined multiple outcomes, including reduction in opioid dosage. Primary analyses were restricted to RCTs with data synthesised using an effect direction plot. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias (RoB2) tool.

RESULTS

Of 7102 identified reports, 18 studies were eligible (eight of which were RCTs). Most used multiple interventions or components. Of the seven RCTs at low risk of bias or with 'some concerns', five showed a positive intervention effect on at least one relevant outcome, four of which included a nurse care manager and/or other specialist support. The remaining two RCTs showed no positive effect of automated symptom monitoring and optimised analgesic management by a nurse care manager or a physician pain specialist team, or of a mobile opioid management app.

CONCLUSION

We identify a clear need for further adequately powered high-quality studies. The conclusions that can be drawn on the effectiveness of interventions are limited by the sparsity and inconsistency of available data.

Combatting opioid misuse, overuse and abuse: a systematic review of pharmacists' services and outcomes

Aim: To examine the range of services pharmacists provide and their impact on patient outcomes, harm reduction, and appropriate opioid use.Methods: Six databases were searched (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, PsycINFO, CENTRAL and Cochrane Methodology Register) from inception to March 2023. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023401895).Results: Twenty-nine studies identified five key areas of pharmacist interventions in opioid management-naloxone programs and opioid de-escalation, patient and primary healthcare providers' education and motivational interview, prescription monitoring and opioid risk screening, clinical pharmacy interventions (pharmacotherapy, medication review, prescribing, adherence monitoring), and collaborative healthcare approaches to promote optimal opioid use. Outcomes assessment indicated harm reduction, improved safety, increased non-opioid analgesic use, decreased opioid consumption, and enhanced pain management.Conclusion: This review underscores pharmacists' vital role in tackling opioid misuse, overuse and abuse, providing a foundation for evidence-based policies to minimize harm and promote optimal opioid use.

Interventions to Expand Community Pharmacists' Scope of Practice

BACKGROUND

The role of community pharmacists has evolved beyond the dispensing of medicines. The aim of this scoping review was to describe the interventions that expand the pharmacist's scope of practice within a community pharmacy setting and assess their effectiveness.

METHODS

We performed a scoping review to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs), published worldwide from 2013 to 2024, which focused on interventions designed to expand pharmacists' scope of practice in the community. The review was undertaken in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews. To address the aim of this scoping review, the included RCTs were mapped to themes influenced by the Professional Practice Standards 2023 as developed by the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia: medication management, collaborative care and medication adherence.

RESULTS

Twelve studies demonstrated the potential to expand community pharmacists' scope of practice. Two RCTs resulted in no effect of the intervention. One RCT (conducted in Italy) led to an actual change to community pharmacists' scope of practice, with a statistically significant improvement in the proportion of patients with controlled asthma.

CONCLUSIONS

On the whole, this scoping review synthesised the findings of peer-reviewed RCT studies that revealed expanding community pharmacists' scope of practice may result in improved patient outcomes, a reduced burden for the healthcare system, and greater productivity.

Impact of pharmacist-delivered interventions on pain-related outcomes: An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

INTRODUCTION

Pain is a significant healthcare challenge, impacting millions worldwide. Pharmacists have increasingly taken on expanded roles in managing pain, particularly in primary and ambulatory care contexts. This umbrella review aims to systematically evaluate evidence from published systematic reviews that explore the impact of pharmacist-delivered interventions on clinical, humanistic, and economic outcomes related to pain.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted across six electronic databases, including Ovid Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, CENTRAL, APA PsycINFO, and DARE, from inception until June 2023. Prior to inclusion, two independent reviewers assessed study titles and abstracts. Following inclusion, an assessment of the methodological quality of the included studies was conducted. AMSTAR 2 was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the included SRs.

RESULTS

From 2055 retrieved titles, 11 systematic reviews were included, with 5 out of 11 being meta-analyses. These SRs encompassed diverse pharmacist-led interventions such as education, medication reviews, and multi-component strategies targeting various facets of pain management. These findings showed favorable clinical outcomes, including reduced pain intensity, improved medication management, enhanced overall physical and mental well-being, and reduced hospitalization durations. Significant pain intensity reductions were found due to pharmacists' interventions, with standardized mean differences (SMDs) ranging from -0.76 to -0.22 across different studies and subgroups. Physical functioning improvements were observed, with SMDs ranging from -0.38 to 1.03. Positive humanistic outcomes were also reported, such as increased healthcare provider confidence, patient satisfaction, and quality of life (QoL). QoL improvements were reported, with SMDs ranging from 0.29 to 1.03. Three systematic reviews examined pharmacist interventions' impact on pain-related economic outcomes, highlighting varying cost implications and the need for robust research methodologies to capture costs and benefits.

CONCLUSION

This umbrella review highlights the effectiveness of pharmacist-delivered interventions in improving clinical, humanistic, and economic outcomes related to pain management. Existing evidence emphasises on the need to integrate pharamacists into multi-disciplinary pain management teams. Further research is needed to investigate innovative care models, such as pharmacist-independent prescribing initiatives within collaborative pain management clinics.

Assessing pharmacists' knowledge, attitudes, and practices of opioid management within different patient populations

BACKGROUND

Racial disparities in drug overdose exist, with black, indigenous, and Hispanic individuals experiencing higher rates of opioid overdose deaths. Opioid use disorder prevention services, such as opioid deprescribing and naloxone dispensing, have been identified as ways to prevent opioid overdose. Pharmacists can help use these strategies, but racial disparities in use exist.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate North Carolina (NC) pharmacist knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) of opioid management practices, including opioid deprescribing and naloxone dispensing, across different racial and ethnic groups.

METHODS

This was a prospective, cross-sectional study conducted through a Web-based KAP survey distributed via e-mail to all NC pharmacists using a modified Dillman's method. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze demographics and pharmacist KAP data. Attitudes data were further analyzed using one-way analysis of variance tests and Tukey's post hoc analyses.

RESULTS

After applying exclusion criteria, 527 participants were eligible for analysis; 254 of these individuals completed the entire survey. The survey response rate was 15.3% and respondents were mostly female (59.1%) and white (86.6%). Approximately half of pharmacists knew the correct opioid morphine milliequivalent cutoffs considered to be high risk (47.7%) and not to be exceeded (51.9%). When asked about chronic opioid statistics within the United States, respondents overestimated that 23.70% of patients on chronic opioid therapy receive naloxone (SD = 18.93%). Pharmacists believed that black patients were more likely to adhere to an opioid taper than any other race or ethnicity and Hispanic patients were more likely to adhere to naloxone treatment than any other race or ethnicity. Finally, 91% of pharmacists knew what an opioid taper was, but 77% of pharmacists had never designed one.

CONCLUSIONS

Gaps in knowledge may contribute to further disparities in opioid management. Pharmacists' attitudes may contribute to biases in opioid management practices and practices related to opioid deprescribing may limit the pharmacists' current role. More education is needed so pharmacists can play an increased role in opioid management across all patient populations.

Experiences and Perceptions of Medical Cannabis among People Living with Chronic Pain and Community Pharmacists: A Qualitative Study in Canada

Background

The use of cannabis to treat chronic pain is under debate despite high expectations from patients. Qualitative data obtained by exploring both patients' and health professionals' perspectives are scarce.

Aims

This study aimed to understand the experiences and perceptions of people living with chronic pain and community pharmacists regarding the role of cannabis in chronic pain treatment in the Canadian context where both medical and recreational cannabis are legal.

Methods

We conducted 12 online focus groups (July 2020-February 2021) with 26 patients and 19 community pharmacists using semistructured discussion guides. All discussions were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim were analyzed using a reflexive thematic approach.

Results

We developed three themes related to patients' perspectives and three themes related to pharmacists' perspectives. Patients' perspectives included (1) cannabis as an alternative to other pain medications, (2) a new treatment with potential health-related risks, and (3) a therapy rather than a recreational drug. Pharmacists' perspectives included (1) challenges in monitoring drug interactions with cannabis in the context of scarce research data, (2) informing and treating patients self-medicating with cannabis amid its growing popularity, and (3) financial costs and legal constraints for patients.

Conclusions

This study highlights patients' and pharmacists' urgent need for reliable information regarding the benefits and risks of cannabis. Training tailored to pharmacists' needs and evidence-based information for patients should be developed to support pharmacists' practice, improve patients' experiences, and promote safe cannabis use.

Physician and nurse practitioner perspectives of a modified Routine Opioid Outcome Monitoring (ROOM) Tool

Introduction The Routine Opioid Outcome Monitoring (ROOM) Tool was developed for use in community pharmacies in Australia. It facilitates pharmacists' screening and brief interventions regarding an individual's opioid use for chronic pain. At our academic teaching hospital, the ROOM Tool was adapted to incorporate a communication tool that includes a pharmacist's assessment and recommendations for primary care providers. This modified ROOM Tool was implemented as part of usual care in our outpatient pharmacies; however, the value to primary care providers is unknown. Aim The aim of this study was to determine primary care provider perspectives on the modified ROOM Tool. Methods Focus groups were conducted with primary care providers from an Academic Family Health Team. The focus group encompassed topics related to the positive and negative aspects of the modified ROOM Tool in supporting the care of patients using opioids for chronic pain. Qualitative content analysis of transcripts was performed to identify themes. Results Three focus groups were conducted with a total of six participants. Four themes emerged: (i) Facilitators to using the tool, (ii) Barriers to using the tool, (iii) Recommendations for improvement, (iv) Impact of the tool on patient care and safety. Discussion The ROOM Tool paired with the communication tool supports collaboration between pharmacists and primary care providers. The communication tool standardises the approach for communicating the pharmacist's assessment and recommendations. Recommendations to refine this modified ROOM Tool may increase its utility to primary care providers and enhance the impact on patient care and safety.

Pharmacist Involvement in Cancer Pain Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This review aimed to critically evaluate the impact of pharmacist involvement in managing pain in cancer patients. Databases (including MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL) were searched with a broad search strategy for studies involving pharmacists and cancer pain management until February 10, 2021. The quality of studies and evidence were assessed using standardized tools and GRADE, respectively. A random-effects model was used for meta-analysis. Sixty-four studies were included. Common interventions delivered by the pharmacists were medication review, patient education, adverse drug reactions (ADRs) detection and management, pharmacological recommendations (in dosing and pharmacotherapy choice), and pain assessment. A pooled analysis of 3 randomized control trials showed a significant reduction in pain intensity with a standardized mean difference (SMD) of 0.35 [95% confidence intervals (CI): -0.55, -0.16]. Pooled analyses from nonrandomized studies of interventions also showed significant results in reduction of ADRs with an odds ratio of 0.69 (95% CI: 0.61, 0.79) and improvement in quality of life with SMD of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.29, 1.32). Thus, pharmacists significantly improve the clinical outcomes of cancer patients related to pain. This indicates the involvement of pharmacists directly or in collaboration with healthcare professionals in the oncology team is highly beneficial for the patients. PERSPECTIVES: This systematic review presents a comprehensive evaluation of pharmacist involvement in cancer pain management. This shows the importance of direct involvement of the pharmacist or as an important member of the multidisciplinary oncology team.

Swallowing the pill of adverse effects: A qualitative study of patients' and pharmacists' experiences and decision-making regarding the adverse effects of chronic pain medications

Introduction

Pharmacological treatments of chronic pain can lead to numerous and sometimes serious adverse effects. Drawing on a social science approach to chronic illness, this study aimed to understand the experiences of people living with chronic pain and community pharmacists regarding the definition, prevention and management of analgesic adverse effects.

Methods

This qualitative study proceeded through 12 online focus groups (FGs) with people living with chronic pain (n = 26) and community pharmacists (n = 19), conducted between July 2020 and February 2021 in the province of Quebec, Canada. The semistructured discussion guides covered participants' definitions of adverse effects and decision‐making regarding their prevention and management. Discussions were audio‐recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using grounded theory.

Results

Both people with chronic pain and pharmacists provided varying definitions of analgesic adverse effects depending on patients' social and clinical characteristics. Present quality of life and serious long‐term risks related to treatment were described as key dimensions influencing adverse effect appraisal. Dilemmas and discrepancies occurred between patients and pharmacists when choosing to prioritize pain relief or adverse effect prevention. Some patients lacked information about their medications and wanted to be more involved in decisions, while many pharmacists were concerned by patients' self‐management of adverse effects. Preventing opioid‐related overdoses often led pharmacists to policing practices. Despite most pharmacists wishing they could have a key role in the management of pain and adverse effects face organizational and financial barriers.

Conclusion

Defining, preventing and managing adverse effects in the treatment of chronic pain requires a person‐centred approach and shared decision‐making. Clinical training improvements and healthcare organization changes are needed to support pharmacists in providing patients with community‐based follow‐up and reliable information about the adverse effects of chronic pain treatments.

Patient or Public Contribution

A person with lived experience of chronic pain was involved as a coinvestigator in the study. He contributed to shaping the study design and objectives, including major methodological decisions such as the choice of pharmacists as the most appropriate professionals to investigate. In addition, 26 individuals with chronic pain shared their experiences extensively during the FGs.

Pharmacists' perceptions of the Canadian opioid regulatory exemptions on patient care and opioid stewardship

Background:

This study explored the perceptions of Canadian pharmacists about the barriers and facilitators of providing opioid stewardship activities in pharmacy practice, considering the subsection 56(1) class exemption under Health Canada’s Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA).

Methods:

Qualitative key informant telephone interviews were conducted with a convenience sample of pharmacists from across Canada. We included community or primary health care team-based pharmacists who self-identified as having experience with providing care for patients using opioids via the exemptions. All transcripts were de-identified, and thematic analysis was conducted to identify themes. Ethics approval was obtained.

Results:

Twenty pharmacists from community and primary health care teams, from all provinces and from urban and rural practices were interviewed. The following themes emerged: 1) optimization of opioid-related patient care, 2) jurisdictional impact and 3) awareness and education. Barriers and facilitators for opioid stewardship activities were identified.

Discussion:

The exemptions facilitated the pharmacists’ ability to provide opioid stewardship and positively affect patient care by providing continuity of and timely access to care. Our research demonstrated that pharmacists can responsibly and independently manage opioid prescriptions within this expanded scope, demonstrating the valuable contribution pharmacists can have in opioid stewardship.

Conclusion:

Pharmacists were willing and able to care for patients receiving opioid medication and thereby played a role in helping address the opioid crisis. The benefits of these exemptions were demonstrated beyond situations related to the COVID-19 pandemic and warrant consideration for consistent implementation across provincial and territorial jurisdictions, thereby ensuring equitable access to care for all Canadians.

Roles, barriers and behavioral determinants related to community pharmacists' involvement in optimizing opioid therapy for chronic pain: a qualitative study

Background Opioid are currently widely used to manage chronic non-malignant pain (CNMP), but there is a growing concern about harm resulting from opioid misuse and the need for medicine optimization, in which pharmacists could potentially play a key role. Objective This study explored pharmacists' roles, barriers and determinants related to their involvement in optimizing prescribed opioids for patients with chronic pain. Setting Community pharmacies in the United Kingdom. Method Semi-structured interviews based on the Theoretical Domains Framework were conducted between January and May 2020 with 20 community pharmacists recruited through professional networks. Data were analysed thematically. Main outcome measure: Pharmacists’ perceived roles, barriers and behavioural determinants in relation to opioid therapy optimization. Result Pharmacists demonstrated desire to contribute to opioid therapy optimization. However, they described that they were often challenged by the lack of relevant knowledge, skills and training, inadequate time and resources, systemic constraints (such as lack of access to medical records and information about diagnosis), and other barriers including relationships with doctors and patients. Conclusion The contribution of community pharmacists to optimize opioid therapy in CNMP is unclear and impeded by lack of appropriate training and systemic constraints. There is a need to develop innovative practice models by addressing the barriers identified in this study to enhance the contribution of community pharmacists in optimization of opioid therapy for chronic pain.

The impact of clinical pharmacist services on patient health outcomes in Pakistan: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The pharmacist's role shifts from dispensing to bedside care, resulting in better patient health outcomes. Pharmacists in developed countries ensure rational drug use, improve clinical outcomes, and promote health status by working as part of a multidisciplinary team of healthcare professionals. However, clinical pharmacist services on healthcare utilization in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) like Pakistan are unclear. As a result, we aim to systematically review pharmacists' clinical roles in improving Pakistani patients' therapeutic, safety, humanistic, and economic outcomes.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library for relevant articles published from inception to 28th February 2021. All authors were involved in the screening and selection of studies. Original studies investigating the therapeutic, humanistic, safety, and economic impact of clinical pharmacists in Pakistani patients (hospitalised or outpatients) were selected. Two reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias in studies, and discrepancies were resolved through mutual consensus. All of the included studies were descriptively synthesised, and PRISMA reporting guidelines were followed.

RESULTS

The literature search found 751 articles from which nine studies were included; seven were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and two were observational studies. Three RCTs included were having a low risk of bias (ROB), two RCTs were having an unclear ROB, while two RCTs were having a high ROB. The nature of clinical pharmacist interventions included one or more components such as disease-related education, lifestyle changes, medication adherence counselling, medication therapy management, and discussions with physicians about prescription modification if necessary. Clinical pharmacist interventions reduce medication-related errors, improve therapeutic outcomes such as blood pressure, glycemic control, lipid control, CD4 T lymphocytes, and renal functions, and improve humanistic outcomes such as patient knowledge, adherence, and health-related quality of life. However, no study reported the economic outcomes of interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of the studies included in this systematic review suggest that clinical pharmacists play important roles in improving patients' health outcomes in Pakistan; however, it should be noted that the majority of the studies have a high risk of bias, and more research with appropriate study designs is needed.