Defining problematic pharmaceutical opioid use among people prescribed opioids for chronic noncancer pain: do different measures identify the same patients?

Automating the Addiction Behaviors Checklist for Problematic Opioid Use Identification

Importance

Individuals whose chronic pain is managed with opioids are at high risk of developing an opioid use disorder. Electronic health records (EHR) allow large-scale studies to identify a continuum of problematic opioid use, including opioid use disorder. Traditionally, this is done through diagnostic codes, which are often unreliable and underused.

Objective

To determine whether regular expressions, an interpretable natural language processing technique, could automate a validated clinical tool (Addiction Behaviors Checklist) to identify problematic opioid use.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study reports on a retrospective cohort with data analyzed from 2021 through 2023. The approach was evaluated against a blinded, manually reviewed holdout test set and validated against an independent test set at a separate institution. The study used data from Vanderbilt University Medical Center's Synthetic Derivative, a deidentified version of the EHR for research purposes. This cohort comprised 8063 individuals with chronic pain, defined by diagnostic codes on at least 2 days. The study team collected free-text notes, demographics, and diagnostic codes and performed an external validation with 100 individuals with chronic pain from Geisinger, recruited from an interventional pain clinic cohort.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the evaluation of the automated method in identifying patients demonstrating problematic opioid use and its comparison with manual medical record review and opioid use disorder diagnostic codes. Methods with F1 scores were evaluated (a single value that combines sensitivity and positive predictive value at a single threshold) and areas under the curve (a single value that combines sensitivity and specificity across multiple thresholds).

Results

Among the 8063 patients in the primary site (5081 female [63%] and 2982 male [37%]; mean [SD] age, 56 [16] years) and 100 patients in the validation site (57 female [57%] and 43 male [43%]; mean [SD] age, 54 [13] years), the automated approach outperformed diagnostic codes based on F1 scores (0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.83 vs 0.08; 95% CI, 0.00-0.19 at the primary site and 0.70; 95% CI, 0.50-0.85 vs 0.29; 95% CI, 0.07-0.50 at the validation site) and areas under the curve (0.82; 95% CI, 0.73-0.89 vs 0.52; 95% CI, 0.50-0.55 at the primary site and 0.86; 95% CI, 0.76-0.94 vs 0.59;95% CI, 0.50-0.67 at validation site).

Conclusions

This automated data extraction technique may facilitate earlier identification of people at risk for and who are experiencing problematic opioid use, and create new opportunities for studying long-term sequelae of opioid pain management.

Abuse-deterrent formulations and opioid-related harms in North Carolina, 2010-2018

Abuse-deterrent formulations of opioid analgesics (ADFs) were introduced to reduce opioid-related harms among pain patients, but postmarketing study results have been mixed. However, these studies may be subject to bias from selection criteria, comparator choice, and potential confounding by "indication," highlighting the need for thorough study design considerations. In a sample of privately insured patients prescribed ADF or non-ADF extended-release/long-acting (ER/LA) opioids in North Carolina, we implemented a version of the prevalent new-user design to evaluate the relationship between ADFs and opioid use disorder (OUD, n = 235) and opioid overdose (n = 18) through 6 months of follow-up using inverse probability-weighted cumulative incidence functions and Fine-Gray models. The weighted hazard ratio (HRw) of opioid overdose among patients initiating ADFs was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.23-3.24) times as high as among patients who initiated, restarted, or continued non-ADF ER/LA opioids. We observed a short-term benefit of ADFs for incident OUD (HRw = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.35-0.93) compared to non-ADF ER/LA opioids in the first 6 weeks of follow-up, but this benefit disappeared later in follow-up (HRw = 1.30; 95% CI, 0.86-1.95). In summary, our findings add to the expanding body of evidence that there is no clear long-term reduction in harm from ADF opioids among patients in outpatient use. This article is part of a Special Collection on Pharmacoepidemiology.

Prevalence of problematic pharmaceutical opioid use in patients with chronic non-cancer pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) is one of the most common causes of disability globally. Opioid prescribing to treat CNCP remains widespread, despite limited evidence of long-term clinical benefit and evidence of harm such as problematic pharmaceutical opioid use (POU) and overdose. The study aimed to measure the prevalence of POU in CNCP patients treated with opioid analgesics.

METHOD

A comprehensive systematic literature review and meta-analysis was undertaken using MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO databases from inception to 27 January 2021. We included studies from all settings with participants aged ≥ 12 with non-cancer pain of ≥ 3 months duration, treated with opioid analgesics. We excluded case-control studies, as they cannot be used to generate prevalence estimates. POU was defined using four categories: dependence and opioid use disorder (D&OUD), signs and symptoms of D&OUD (S&S), aberrant behaviour (AB) and at risk of D&OUD. We used a random-effects multi-level meta-analytical model. We evaluated inconsistency using the I2 statistic and explored heterogeneity using subgroup analyses and meta-regressions.

RESULTS

A total of 148 studies were included with > 4.3 million participants; 1% of studies were classified as high risk of bias. The pooled prevalence was 9.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 5.7-14.8%; I2 = 99.9%] for D&OUD, 29.6% (95% CI = 22.1-38.3%, I2 = 99.3%) for S&S and 22% (95% CI = 17.4-27.3%, I2 = 99.8%) for AB. The prevalence of those at risk of D&OUD was 12.4% (95% CI = 4.3-30.7%, I2 = 99.6%). Prevalence was affected by study setting, study design and diagnostic tool. Due to the high heterogeneity, the findings should be interpreted with caution.

CONCLUSIONS

Problematic pharmaceutical opioid use appears to be common in chronic pain patients treated with opioid analgesics, with nearly one in 10 experiencing dependence and opioid use disorder, one in three showing signs and symptoms of dependence and opioid use disorder and one in five showing aberrant behaviour.

ANF therapy® for pain management, feasibility, satisfaction, perceived symptom reduction and side effects: a real-world multisite observational study

[Purpose] Non-invasive and drug-free interventions for pain are being developed. One of them is ANF (which stands for "Amino Neuro Frequency") Therapy®, which consists in the application of carbonized metal devices on a patient's skin. We aimed to: 1) test perceived changes in pain intensity after ANF application, 2) record frequency and severity of side effects, 3) assess clinician and patient satisfaction, 4) explore effects on swelling and range of motion (ROM). [Participants and Methods] In this real-world multisite observational study, N=113 physical therapists in 45 countries, applied ANF to N=1,054 patients (Mage=45.2, 56.2% female) with pain complaints. Demographic data, pain intensity (NRS-11), effects of ANF on swelling and ROM, clinician and patient satisfaction and side effects were collected. [Results] Main pain locations were: low back (14.9%), knee (12.4%), neck (10%), and shoulder (9.6%). Pre-treatment pain intensity was high (Mean=7.6, SD=1.9). It significantly decreased post-treatment (Mean=3.1, SD=2.0), t(1053)=7.25, with a large effect size (Cohen's d=2.2). Swelling decreased and ROM increased. Average satisfaction with ANF was 92/100. Patients often experienced mild side effects (42.3%): dry mouth, headache and fatigue. [Conclusion] Results show large effect sizes, high satisfaction, and mild and short-term side effects. This is very promising but should be interpreted with caution considering the study limitations.

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

BACKGROUND

Opioids are being prescribed widely, and increasingly, for the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP). However, several side effects are associated with mid- and long-term opioid use and, for certain patients, with the risk of problematic opioid use. The aim of this study is to know the perception of the physicians about which variables could be associated with increased risk of patients with CNCP developing a problem of abuse or misuse of the prescribed opioid medication.

METHODS

Twenty-nine physicians with experience in CNCP pain management and opioids prescription participated in a two-round Delphi study focused on the risk factors for opioid misuse and abuse.

RESULTS

The variables that reached consensus regarding their relationship with the increased risk of suffering a problem of opioid abuse or misuse were: (1) Experiencing pain on a daily basis, (2) previous use of high-dose opioids, (3) generalized anxiety, (4) hopelessness, (5) benzodiazepine intake, (6) use of opioids for reasons other than pain, (7) family problems, family instability or family breakdown, and (8) having access to several opioid prescribers. The only variable that reached consensus regarding it not being associated to a possible risk of abuse or misuse was having mild pain intensity (0-4 on a NRS-11).

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides useful information that could help make decisions about the use of opioids for CNCP treatment and prevent future difficulties. Prospective studies testing the relationship of the variables that reached consensus with the risk of opioid misuse and abuse are warranted.

SIGNIFICANCE

This study shows the variables of CNCP that the professional must take into account in order to avoid possible problems when prescribing opioids.

Determining the Impact of Opioid Policy on Substance Use and Mental Health-Related Harms: Protocol for a Data Linkage Study

BACKGROUND

Increasing harms related to prescription opioids over the past decade have led to the introduction of a range of key national and state policy initiatives across Australia. These include introducing a mandatory real-time prescription drug-monitoring program in the state of Victoria from April 2020 and a series of changes to subsidies for opioids on the Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme from June 2020. Together, these changes aim to influence opioid supply and reduce harms related to prescription opioids, yet few studies have specifically explored how these policies have influenced opioid prescribing and related harms in Australia.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to examine the impact of a range of opioid-related policies on hospital admissions and emergency department (ED) presentations in Victoria, Australia. In particular, the study aims to understand the effect of various opioid policies and opioid-prescribing changes on (1) the number and rates of ED presentations and hospital admissions attributed to substance use (ie, opioid and nonopioid related) or mental ill-health (eg, suicide, self-harm, anxiety, and depression), (2) the association between differing opioid dose trajectories and the likelihood of ED presentations and hospital admissions related to substance use and mental ill-health, and (3) whether changes in an individual's opioid prescribing change the risk related to ED presentations and hospital admissions related to substance use and mental ill-health.

METHODS

We will conduct a population-level linked data study. General practice health records obtained from the Population Level Analysis and Reporting platform are linked with person-level data from 3 large hospital networks in Victoria, Australia. Interrupted time series analysis will be used to examine the impact of opioid policies on a range of harms, including the rates of presentations related to substance use (opioid and nonopioid) and mental ill-health among the primary care cohort. Group-based trajectory modeling and a case-crossover design will be used to further explore the impact of changes in opioid dosage and other covariates on opioid and nonopioid poisonings and mental ill-health-related presentations at the patient level.

RESULTS

Given that this paper serves as a protocol, there are currently no results available. The deidentified primary health data were sourced from electronic medical records of approximately 4,717,000 patients from 542 consenting general practices over a 6-year period (2017-2022). The submission of results for publication is planned for early 2024.

CONCLUSIONS

This study will add to the limited evidence base to help understand the impact of opioid policies in Australia, including whether intended or unintended outcomes are occurring as a result.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

EU PAS Register EUPAS104005; https://www.encepp.eu/encepp/viewResource.htm?id=104006.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/51825.

Detecting Problematic Opioid Use in the Electronic Health Record: Automation of the Addiction Behaviors Checklist in a Chronic Pain Population

Importance

Individuals whose chronic pain is managed with opioids are at high risk of developing an opioid use disorder. Large data sets, such as electronic health records, are required for conducting studies that assist with identification and management of problematic opioid use.

Objective

Determine whether regular expressions, a highly interpretable natural language processing technique, could automate a validated clinical tool (Addiction Behaviors Checklist1) to expedite the identification of problematic opioid use in the electronic health record.

Design

This cross-sectional study reports on a retrospective cohort with data analyzed from 2021 through 2023. The approach was evaluated against a blinded, manually reviewed holdout test set of 100 patients.

Setting

The study used data from Vanderbilt University Medical Center's Synthetic Derivative, a de-identified version of the electronic health record for research purposes.

Participants

This cohort comprised 8,063 individuals with chronic pain. Chronic pain was defined by International Classification of Disease codes occurring on at least two different days.18 We collected demographic, billing code, and free-text notes from patients' electronic health records.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the evaluation of the automated method in identifying patients demonstrating problematic opioid use and its comparison to opioid use disorder diagnostic codes. We evaluated the methods with F1 scores and areas under the curve - indicators of sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive value.

Results

The cohort comprised 8,063 individuals with chronic pain (mean [SD] age at earliest chronic pain diagnosis, 56.2 [16.3] years; 5081 [63.0%] females; 2982 [37.0%] male patients; 76 [1.0%] Asian, 1336 [16.6%] Black, 56 [1.0%] other, 30 [0.4%] unknown race patients, and 6499 [80.6%] White; 135 [1.7%] Hispanic/Latino, 7898 [98.0%] Non-Hispanic/Latino, and 30 [0.4%] unknown ethnicity patients). The automated approach identified individuals with problematic opioid use that were missed by diagnostic codes and outperformed diagnostic codes in F1 scores (0.74 vs. 0.08) and areas under the curve (0.82 vs 0.52).

Conclusions and Relevance

This automated data extraction technique can facilitate earlier identification of people at-risk for, and suffering from, problematic opioid use, and create new opportunities for studying long-term sequelae of opioid pain management.

Cannabis use disorder in patients with chronic pain: overestimation and underestimation in a cross-sectional observational study in 3 German pain management centres

ABSTRACT

There are concerns that cannabis use disorder (CUD) may develop in patients with chronic pain prescribed medical cannabis (MC). The criteria for CUD according to the Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders Version 5 (DSM-5) were not developed for the identification of patients using cannabis for therapeutic reasons. In addition, some items of CUD might be attributed to the desire of the patient to relieve the pain. Therefore, alternative strategies are needed to identify the true prevalence of CUD in persons with chronic pain being treated with MC. The prevalence of CUD in patients with chronic pain according to the DSM-5 criteria was assessed using an anonymous questionnaire in 187 consecutive patients attending 3 German pain centres in 2021. Questionnaires were rated as follows: (1) all criteria included, (2) removal of items addressing tolerance and withdrawal, and (3) removal of positive items if associated with the desire to relieve pain. Abuse was assessed by self-report (use of illegal drugs and diversion and illegal acquisition of MC) and urine tests for illegal drugs. Physicians recorded any observation of abuse. Cannabis use disorder according to the DSM-5 criteria was present in 29.9%, in 13.9% when items of tolerance and withdrawal were removed, and in 2.1% when positive behaviour items were removed. In 10.7%, at least 1 signal of abuse was noted. Urine tests were positive for nonprescribed drugs (amphetamines and tranquilizer) in 4.8% of subjects. Physicians identified abuse in 1 patient. In this study, the DSM-5 criteria overestimated and physicians underestimated the prevalence of CUD in patients prescribed MC for chronic pain.

Variation in Clinical Characteristics and Longitudinal Outcomes in Individuals with Opioid Use Disorder Diagnosis Codes

BACKGROUND

Patterns of opioid use vary, including prescribed use without aberrancy, limited aberrant use, and potential opioid use disorder (OUD). In clinical practice, similar opioid-related International Classification of Disease (ICD) codes are applied across this spectrum, limiting understanding of how groups vary by sociodemographic factors, comorbidities, and long-term risks.

OBJECTIVE

(1) Examine how Veterans assigned opioid abuse/dependence ICD codes vary at diagnosis and with respect to long-term risks. (2) Determine whether those with limited aberrant use share more similarities to likely OUD vs those using opioids as prescribed.

DESIGN

Longitudinal observational cohort study.

PARTICIPANTS

National sample of Veterans categorized as having (1) likely OUD, (2) limited aberrant opioid use, or (3) prescribed, non-aberrant use based upon enhanced medical chart review.

MAIN MEASURES

Comparison of sociodemographic and clinical factors at diagnosis and rates of age-adjusted mortality, non-fatal opioid overdose, and hospitalization after diagnosis. An exploratory machine learning analysis investigated how closely those with limited aberrant use resembled those with likely OUD.

KEY RESULTS

Veterans (n = 483) were categorized as likely OUD (62.1%), limited aberrant use (17.8%), and prescribed, non-aberrant use (20.1%). Age, proportion experiencing homelessness, chronic pain, anxiety disorders, and non-opioid substance use disorders differed by group. All-cause mortality was high (44.2 per 1000 person-years (95% CI 33.9, 56.7)). Hospitalization rates per 1000 person-years were highest in the likely OUD group (831.5 (95% CI 771.0, 895.5)), compared to limited aberrant use (739.8 (95% CI 637.1, 854.4)) and prescribed, non-aberrant use (411.9 (95% CI 342.6, 490.4). The exploratory analysis reclassified 29.1% of those with limited aberrant use as having likely OUD with high confidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Veterans assigned opioid abuse/dependence ICD codes are heterogeneous and face variable long-term risks. Limited aberrant use confers increased risk compared to no aberrant use, and some may already have OUD. Findings warrant future investigation of this understudied population.

U-PAIN cohort study among patients with chronic pain in specialised pain care: a feasibility study

OBJECTIVES

To examine acceptability of study participation and feasibility of (1) recruitment, (2) data collection and (3) outcome measures for the prospective U-PAIN cohort.

DESIGN

Internal feasibility study of a prospective cohort.

PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING

64 patients, >18 years, with chronic pain at a multidisciplinary pain centre at a university hospital in Sweden.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Acceptability of study participation was measured with a study-specific 10-item Likert scale. A score <3 was considered feasible, for the two items that assessed respondent burden a higher score indicated lesser participant burden and a score >3 was feasible. Recruitment was assessed by participation rates at baseline and retention at the 1-year follow-up, with threshold values for feasibility at 75% and 80%, respectively. Data collection and outcome measures were examined by completions rates of study procedures (90% was considered feasible), sample scores, internal consistency (α>0.70 was considered feasible), and agreement between self-reported data and data retrieved from medical records on opioid use (ICC or κ>0.60 was considered feasible).

RESULTS

Acceptability for study procedures was feasible, but participation rates were low: 25%. The retention rate at 1-year follow-up was 81% for those included in the feasibility study, that is, filling out computerised patient-reported outcome measures, and 65% for those using paper and pencil format. The completion rates for the different data collection methods ranged from 83% to 95%. Agreement between self-reported opioid use and prescribed dose and between opioid use disorder according to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), and clinical International Classification of Diseases-10 (ICD-10) diagnoses for opioid dependence were almost perfect (κ=0.91 and κ=0.90, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

This feasibility study has helped to explore and improve methods for recruitment, data collection and use of outcome measures for the U-PAIN cohort. Low participation rate and high refusal rate at baseline is a challenge that needs to be further addressed.

Presentations to the emergency department with self-harm or suicidal behaviours: A role for digital mental health services?

Emergency Department (ED) is an important site for assessing people presenting with self-harm or suicidal behaviors. Digital mental health services (DMHS) offer evidence-based interventions for mental health issues, but are often under-utilised, and information about them is rarely provided in ED. This feasibility study explored whether offering information about a DMHS to individuals presenting to ED with self-harm/suicidal behaviors resulted in self-enrolment in DMHS interventions for anxiety, depression and/or chronic pain.

METHODS

all individuals aged 18+ presenting with self-harm/suicidal behaviors to a metropolitan ED were screened for symptoms of anxiety, depression and/or chronic pain. Those with these symptoms were invited to participate in a study investigating enrolment with a DMHS. Study participants were provided with information about DMHS and followed up at one month.

RESULTS

260 individuals presented with self-harm/suicidal behaviors over the 6-month study period. Many reported low mood (73.5%, n = 191) anxiety (67.2%, n = 174) and/or chronic pain (18.5%, n = 48). Half of those eligible for DMHS agreed at point of ED discharge to be contacted about participation in the DMHS study (51.4%, n = 108). One-third of these participated in the study (35.2%, n = 38). Rates of past-month high-risk SB (65.8%, n = 25), depression (92.1%, n = 35), anxiety (78.9%, n = 30) and chronic pain (57.9%, n = 22) were very high. Of these, 39.5% (n = 15) self-enrolled with the DMHS; almost all (80.0%, n = 13) engaged with an online intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

A subset of people presenting to emergency department with suicidal behaviors will engage with DMHS. Better understanding is needed of factors contributing to uptake of DMHS in this group.

Opioid use disorder in anaesthesia and intensive care: Prevention, diagnosis and management

Opioid misuse is common, as is opioid agonist treatment of opioid dependence. Almost 3% of Australians and over 3.5% of those living in New Zealand report misuse of analgesics. Over 50,000 Australians receive opioid agonist treatment with methadone or buprenorphine for management of severe opioid use disorder.The perioperative period is an opportunity to identify pre-existing opioid misuse, and to introduce interventions to reduce the risk of development of opioid use disorder. Challenges of acute perioperative pain management or intensive care management of patients receiving opioid agonist treatment include opioid tolerance and ongoing prescribing of methadone or buprenorphine. There has been some ambiguity about the optimal perioperative management of buprenorphine, a partial agonist at the mu receptor.In this article, a framework to identify emerging opioid misuse problems, identify risk of overdose and to manage the opioid-dependent patient on opioid agonist treatment perioperatively or in the intensive care unit is provided. Diagnostic criteria and risk stratification criteria are presented. Management strategies include trauma-informed care, care planning and care coordination with community practitioners and opioid agonist treatment providers. Continuing methadone or buprenorphine perioperatively with additional opioid and non-opioid analgesia is generally recommended. Increased opioid agonist treatment doses may be required on discharge. An algorithm for decisions about opioid agonist treatment management in the intensive care unit based on the risks of opioid withdrawal and toxicity is considered. Strategies for managing the opioid-dependent patient who is not in treatment are also discussed.

Associations of cannabis use, opioid use, and their combination with serious psychological distress among Ontario adults

Considering the widespread use of cannabis and opioids, examining the use of cannabis, opioids and their combination with serious psychological distress (SPD) is important. A total of N = 12,358 adults participating in the Monitor surveillance study between 2014 and 2019 were included. Cannabis and opioid use reflected any use of the substances in the past 12 months. SPD was defined as having a score of 13 or more on the Kessler-6 questionnaire, a 6-item scale that includes feeling nervous, hopeless, restless or fidgety, sad or depressed. Odds ratios (ORs) were estimated from logistic regression models accounting for complex survey design and sociodemographic factors. Overall, 12.8% of the sample reported cannabis use only, 18% reported opioid use only, and 4.9% reported both cannabis and opioid use. Use of both cannabis and opioids was significantly associated with SPD in both women (OR = 4.24; 95% CI, 2.34 to 7.69), and in men (OR = 2.99; 95% CI, 1.56 to 5.73) compared to use of neither. The joint association of cannabis and opioids with SPD was additive. Addressing those who use both cannabis and opioids may help reduce the burden of SPD among adults in Ontario.

Cannabis-Based Medicines and Medical Cannabis for Chronic Neuropathic Pain

Neuropathic pain represents a broad category of pain syndromes that include a wide variety of peripheral and central disorders. The overall prevalence of neuropathic pain in the general population is reported to be between 7 and 10%. Management of neuropathic pain presents an unmet clinical need, with less than 50% of patients achieving substantial pain relief with medications currently recommended such as pregabalin, gabapentin, duloxetine and various tricyclic antidepressants. It has been suggested that cannabis-based medicines (CbMs) and medical cannabis (MC) may be a treatment option for those with chronic neuropathic pain. CbMs/MC are available in different forms: licensed medications or medical products (plant-derived and/or synthetic products such as tetrahydrocannabinol or cannabidiol); magistral preparations of cannabis plant derivatives with defined molecular content such as dronabinol (tetrahydrocannabinol); and herbal cannabis with a defined content of tetrahydrocannabinol and/or cannabidiol, together with other active ingredients (phytocannabinoids other than cannabidiol/tetrahydrocannabinol, terpenes and flavonoids). The availability of different types of CbMs/MC varies between countries worldwide. Systematic reviews of available randomised controlled trials have stated low-quality evidence for CbMs and MC for chronic neuropathic pain. Depending on the studies included in the various quantitative syntheses, authors have reached divergent conclusions on the efficacy of CbMs/MC for chronic neuropathic pain (from not effective to a clinically meaningful benefit). Clinically relevant side effects of CbMs/MC, especially for central nervous system and psychiatric disorders, have been reported by some systematic reviews. Recommendations for the use of CbMs/MC for chronic neuropathic pain by various medical associations also differ, from negative recommendations, no recommendation possible, recommended as third-line therapy, or recommended as an alternative in selected cases failing standard therapies within a multimodal concept. After reading this paper, readers are invited to formulate their own conclusions regarding the potential benefits and harms of CbMs/MC for the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain.

Two data-driven approaches to identifying the spectrum of problematic opioid use: A pilot study within a chronic pain cohort

BACKGROUND

Although electronic health records (EHR) have significant potential for the study of opioid use disorders (OUD), detecting OUD in clinical data is challenging. Models using EHR data to predict OUD often rely on case/control classifications focused on extreme opioid use. There is a need to expand this work to characterize the spectrum of problematic opioid use.

METHODS

Using a large academic medical center database, we developed 2 data-driven methods of OUD detection: (1) a Comorbidity Score developed from a Phenome-Wide Association Study of phenotypes associated with OUD and (2) a Text-based Score using natural language processing to identify OUD-related concepts in clinical notes. We evaluated the performance of both scores against a manual review with correlation coefficients, Wilcoxon rank sum tests, and area-under the receiver operating characteristic curves. Records with the highest Comorbidity and Text-based scores were re-evaluated by manual review to explore discrepancies.

RESULTS

Both the Comorbidity and Text-based OUD risk scores were significantly elevated in the patients judged as High Evidence for OUD in the manual review compared to those with No Evidence (p = 1.3E-5 and 1.3E-6, respectively). The risk scores were positively correlated with each other (rho = 0.52, p < 0.001). AUCs for the Comorbidity and Text-based scores were high (0.79 and 0.76, respectively). Follow-up manual review of discrepant findings revealed strengths of data-driven methods over manual review, and opportunities for improvement in risk assessment.

CONCLUSION

Risk scores comprising comorbidities and text offer differing but synergistic insights into characterizing problematic opioid use. This pilot project establishes a foundation for more robust work in the future.

European clinical practice recommendations on opioids for chronic noncancer pain - Part 2: Special situations

BACKGROUND

Opioid use for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) is under debate. In the absence of pan-European guidance on this issue, a position paper was commissioned by the European Pain Federation (EFIC).

METHODS

The clinical practice recommendations were developed by eight scientific societies and one patient self-help organization under the coordination of EFIC. A systematic literature search in MEDLINE (up until January 2020) was performed. Two categories of guidance are given: Evidence-based recommendations (supported by evidence from systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials or of observational studies) and Good Clinical Practice (GCP) statements (supported either by indirect evidence or by case-series, case-control studies and clinical experience). The GRADE system was applied to move from evidence to recommendations. The recommendations and GCP statements were developed by a multiprofessional task force (including nursing, service users, physicians, physiotherapy and psychology) and formal multistep procedures to reach a set of consensus recommendations. The clinical practice recommendations were reviewed by five external reviewers from North America and Europe and were also posted for public comment.

RESULTS

The European Clinical Practice Recommendations give guidance for combination with other medications, the management of frequent (e.g. nausea, constipation) and rare (e.g. hyperalgesia) side effects, for special clinical populations (e.g. children and adolescents, pregnancy) and for special situations (e.g. liver cirrhosis).

CONCLUSION

If a trial with opioids for chronic noncancer pain is conducted, detailed knowledge and experience are needed to adapt the opioid treatment to a special patient group and/or clinical situation and to manage side effects effectively.

SIGNIFICANCE

If a trial with opioids for chronic noncancer pain is conducted, detailed knowledge and experience are needed to adapt the opioid treatment to a special patient group and/or clinical situation and to manage side effects effectively. A collaboration of medical specialties and of all health care professionals is needed for some special populations and clinical situations.

Pharmaceutical Opioid Use Patterns and Indicators of Extramedical Use and Harm in Adults With Chronic Noncancer Pain, 2012-2018

IMPORTANCE

Despite concern about harms related to long-term prescribed opioid use among individuals with chronic noncancer pain (CNCP), no study has examined whether the same patients engage in a risky pattern of use consistently for the long term.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the prevalence, incidence, persistence, and cessation of a range of opioid behaviors, indicators of extramedical use, and harm among individuals who are prescribed opioids.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This 5-year prospective cohort study in communities across Australia included 1514 adults who were prescribed opioids for CNCP. Data collection took place from August 2012 to December 2018, and data analysis took place from February to November 2020.

EXPOSURE

Prescription opioid use.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

High-dose opioid use (≥200 oral morphine equivalent [OME] mg/d); requesting an increase in opioid dose; requesting an early prescription renewal; tampering with opioid medication; diversion of medication to others; and International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision opioid dependence. Cessation of opioid use was also assessed.

RESULTS

Of the 1514 participants, 672 (44.39%) were men, the mean (SD) age was 58 (19) years, and 737 (48.68%) were unemployed. At each annual interview, approximately 1 in 8 people (10.98% [95% CI, 10.33%-11.63%] to 14.73% [95% CI, 13.98%-15.48%] at any given interview) were taking more than 200 OME mg/d; comparatively more had requested an increased dosage in the previous 3 months (8.46% [95% CI, 7.89%-9.03%] to 23.77% [95% CI, 22.82%-24.73%]); and fewer asked for an early prescription renewal (4.61% [95% CI, 4.19%-5.03%] to 13.97% [95% CI, 13.24%-14.70%]). In any given interview, between 3.06% (95% CI, 2.72%-3.40%) and 7.86% (95% CI, 7.31%-8.41%) of respondents reported tampering and between 0.47% (95% CI, 0.33%-0.60%) and 1.39% (95% CI, 1.16%-1.62%) reported diversion to others. Between 8.28% (95% CI, 7.71%-8.84%) and 13.06% (95% CI, 12.35%-13.77%) met criteria for opioid dependence at each interview. Opioid cessation increased across interviews, from year 1 (9.15% [95% CI, 8.55%-9.74%]) to year 5 (20.02% [19.14%-20.89%]). There was considerable incidence and cessation in all behaviors from 1 interview to the next: most who engaged in any of these behaviors only did so at only 1 interview. For pharmaceutical opioid dependence, between 55.26% (95% CI, 53.81%-56.71%) and 64.44% (95% CI, 62.87%-66.00%) of cases in 1 interview did not meet dependence criteria in the following interview.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest considerable fluidity in opioid use, extramedical behaviors, and opioid dependence among people with CNCP. This reinforces the need for reassessment of the effectiveness and safety of prescription opioid use over time.

Prevalence of Problematic Use of Opioids in Patients with Chronic Noncancer Pain: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Opioid prescription for chronic noncancer pain is associated with problematic use. We aimed to review and summarize the evidence on the prevalence of problematic use of opioids in adults with chronic noncancer pain and investigate whether the prevalence rates were changing over time.

DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT

A systematic review of the literature was undertaken following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. We systematically searched the literature in the electronic databases MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and Web of Science and studies with adult participants with chronic noncancer pain using opioids with indication of one or more of the following terms about problematic opioid use: abuse, misuse, addiction, dependence, problematic use, and aberrant behavior/use were eligible for data extraction. Meta-analysis was performed to estimate the pooled prevalence rates using a random-effects model, and subanalysis was conducted.

RESULTS

Our search identified a total of 784 potentially relevant studies. After a thorough evaluation, 19 papers, mostly from the United States, were included in our qualitative and quantitative synthesis. The majority of the data came from speciality pain clinics. The estimated prevalence of problematic use of opioids in adults with chronic noncancer pain was 36.3% (95% confidence interval: 27.4 to 45.2%; I²  = 99.64%). Problematic opioid use was mostly identified using the questionnaire method. Thirteen studies (68%) presented a low risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study presents an alarming estimate regarding the prevalence of problematic use of opioids among patients with noncancer pain. These results deserve special attention from health care professionals and health authorities.

Validity and Reliability of the Computer-Administered Routine Opioid Outcome Monitoring (ROOM) Tool

OBJECTIVE

The Routine Opioid Outcome Monitoring (ROOM) tool measures outcomes with opioids using an established framework which includes domains such as pain, mood, opioid use disorder, alcohol use, and constipation. This study aims to validate and establish the test-retest reliability of the computer-administered ROOM tool.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Cross-sectional analysis of an online sample.

SUBJECTS

Participants comprised those with chronic noncancer pain who regularly used prescription opioids.

METHODS

Participants self-completed the online ROOM tool along with other validated measures (validation questionnaire), and those who were agreeable also completed the online test-retest questionnaire approximately two weeks later. Subcomponents of the ROOM tool (i.e., pain, mood, alcohol use, opioid use disorder, and constipation) were validated against longer measures of the same construct using Pearson correlation coefficients. Intraclass correlation coefficients were used to assess the stability of the ROOM tool over time.

RESULTS

A total of 324 participants completed the validation questionnaire, of whom 260 also completed the test-retest questionnaire. The opioid use disorder domain showed good sensitivity (73.6) and specificity (75.8) against the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition, any opioid use disorder. All ROOM components showed moderate correlation (r = 0.55-0.73) with their longer counterparts. Test-retest reliability was fair (0.58-0.75), indicating that responses were relatively stable over time. Reliability did vary, however, based on the components being measured and how certain tools were scored.

CONCLUSION

The computer-administered ROOM tool is a valid approach for brief monitoring of outcomes with prescribed opioids in primary care settings and appears to be acceptable to people who are using prescribed opioids for chronic pain.

Community pharmacists' preparedness to intervene with concerns around prescription opioids: findings from a nationally representative survey

Background Prescription opioid use and related harms have dramatically increased in many countries. Objective To investigate pharmacists' preparedness and confidence to intervene when concerned about supplying prescription opioids and strategies used when concerned about supplying these opioids. Setting Online survey among a representative sample of Australian community pharmacists. Method Pharmacists completed an online survey about their concerns, comfort and strategies used when supplying prescription opioids. Correlates of comfort to intervene and active intervention strategies were explored using multivariable ordered logistic regression and adjusted odd ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals were reported. Main outcome measures Comfort to intervene when concerned about supplying prescription opioids and pharmacists' discussing these concerns with the patient, and the prescriber. Results Most pharmacists were concerned about supplying prescription opioids to patients in the past week. Being female [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.63; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47-0.85] was associated with reduced comfort, while practicing within a large chain pharmacy (aOR 1.52, 95% CI 1.08-2.15) was associated with greater comfort to intervene when concerned about prescription opioid supply. Pharmacists practicing in rural areas were significantly less likely than those in capital cities to discuss concerns with patients (aOR 0.66, 95% CI 0.45-0.97). Post-graduate education about substance use disorders was associated with increased likelihood of discussing concerns with patients (aOR 1.54, 95% CI 1.12-2.13). Pharmacists that indicated greater comfort in intervening when concerned about prescription opioids were more likely to discuss concerns with both patients and prescribers. Females were significantly more likely to discuss concerns with prescribers (aOR 1.67, 95% CI 1.22-2.29), whereas years of practice reduced the odds of discussing concerns with prescribers (aOR 0.98, 95% CI 0.97-0.99). Conclusion Considering specific factors such as gender and years of practice to help target pharmacist training may lead to increased comfort in discussing concerns related to prescription opioids, which in turn may improve communication with prescribers and patients.

Development of a Brief Patient-Administered Screening Tool for Prescription Opioid Dependence for Primary Care Settings

OBJECTIVE

To develop a short, patient-administered screening tool that will allow for earlier assessment of prescription opioid dependence (often referred to as addiction) in primary care settings.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Cross-sectional analysis (N = 1,134) from the two-year time point of the Pain and Opioids IN Treatment (POINT) cohort was used in the scale development.

SUBJECTS

Participants who completed two-year interviews in the POINT study, a prospective cohort study that followed people with chronic noncancer pain over a five-year period, and who were prescribed strong opioids for a minimum of six weeks at baseline.

METHODS

An advisory committee provided advice on wording and content for screening in primary care settings. Univariate logistic regression identified individual items that were significantly associated with meeting ICD-11 criteria for prescription opioid dependence. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis (EFA and CFA) were conducted, and items were reduced to identify a small item set that were discriminative and shared a simple underlying structure.

RESULTS

Sixty-four variables associated with ICD-11 criteria for prescription opioid dependence were initially identified. Four rounds of EFA were performed, resulting in five items remaining. CFA identified two possible four-item combinations, with the final combination chosen based on greater item endorsement and the results of goodness-of-fit indices.

CONCLUSIONS

Addressing prescription opioid dependence is an important part of the global public health challenge surrounding rising opioid-related harm. This study addresses an important initial requisite step to develop a brief screening tool. Further studies are required to validate the tool in clinical settings.

Combating escalating harms associated with pharmaceutical opioid use in Australia: the POPPY II study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Opioid prescribing has increased 15-fold in Australia in the past two decades, alongside increases in a range of opioid-related harms such as opioid dependence and overdose. However, despite concerns about increasing opioid use, extramedical use and harms, there is a lack of population-level evidence about the drivers of long-term prescribed opioid use, dependence, overdose and other harms.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will form a cohort of all adult residents in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, who initiated prescribed opioids from 2002 using Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme dispensing records. This cohort will be linked to a wide range of other datasets containing information on sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, health service use and adverse outcomes (eg, opioid dependence and non-fatal and fatal overdose). Analyses will initially examine patterns and predictors of prescribed opioid use and then apply regression and survival analysis to quantify the risks and risk factors of adverse outcomes associated with prescribed opioid use.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has received full ethical approval from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Ethics Committee, the NSW Population and Health Services Research Committee and the ACT Health Human Research Ethics Committee. This will be the largest postmarketing surveillance study of prescribed opioids undertaken in Australia, linking exposure and outcomes and examining risk factors for adverse outcomes of prescribed opioids. As such, this work has important translational promise, with direct relevance to regulatory authorities and agencies worldwide. Project findings will be disseminated at scientific conferences and in peer-reviewed journals. We will also conduct targeted dissemination with policy makers, professional bodies and peak bodies in the pain, medicine and addiction fields through stakeholder workshops and advisory groups. Results will be reported in accordance with the REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely collected Data (RECORD) Statement.

Estimated Prevalence of Opioid Use Disorder in Massachusetts, 2011-2015: A Capture-Recapture Analysis

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the annual prevalence of opioid use disorder (OUD) in Massachusetts from 2011 to 2015.

METHODS

We performed a multisample stratified capture-recapture analysis to estimate OUD prevalence in Massachusetts. Individuals identified from 6 administrative databases for 2011 to 2012 and 7 databases for 2013 to 2015 were linked at the individual level and included in the analysis. Individuals were stratified by age group, sex, and county of residence.

RESULTS

The OUD prevalence in Massachusetts among people aged 11 years or older was 2.72% in 2011 and 2.87% in 2012. Between 2013 and 2015, the prevalence increased from 3.87% to 4.60%. The greatest increase in prevalence was observed among those in the youngest age group (11-25 years), a 76% increase from 2011 to 2012 and a 42% increase from 2013 to 2015.

CONCLUSIONS

In Massachusetts, the OUD prevalence was 4.6% among people 11 years or older in 2015. The number of individuals with OUD is likely increasing, particularly among young people.

Understanding an emerging treatment population: Protocol for and baseline characteristics of a prospective cohort of people receiving treatment for pharmaceutical opioid dependence

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS

Despite large increases in pharmaceutical opioid dependence and related mortality, few studies have focused on the characteristics and treatment experiences of those with pharmaceutical opioid dependence. We describe the formation of a prospective cohort of people receiving treatment for pharmaceutical opioid dependence and describe their baseline characteristics.

DESIGN AND METHODS

People who had entered treatment for pharmaceutical opioid dependence (n = 108) were recruited through drug treatment services in New South Wales, Australia. We describe baseline characteristics of those that commenced pharmaceutical opioids for pain or other reasons and conducted a thematic analysis of responses regarding their treatment experience.

RESULTS

Mean age was 41 years (SD 11), half were male (48%). Just over half reported lifetime heroin use (57%). Oxycodone (49%) and codeine (29%) were the most common opioids reported. Most (85%) reported past-year problematic pain, 38% reported chronic pain. Half (52%) reported moderate to severe depression symptoms. Most (66%) commenced opioids for pain, and this group were older, less likely to report a previous overdose and less likely to report use of illicit drugs compared to those commencing for other reasons. Five themes related to treatment expectations: (i) stigma; (ii) the restrictive nature of treatment; (iii) knowledge; (iv) pain; and (v) positive experience with buprenorphine.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

This study describes the complexities in an important emerging treatment population of pharmaceutical opioid-dependent people. Findings highlights that addressing knowledge and perceptions around treatment may be critical to address the rising mortality associated with pharmaceutical opioid dependence.

Opioids: Clinical Practice, Monitoring, and Medicolegal Considerations

Background

In the past decade, opioid use in the general population of the US has increased dramatically. Concomitantly, opioid-related morbidity and mortality have also risen steeply. The causes of opioid over-prescribing are multifactorial, with pressure from medical agencies, patients, aggressive patient-directed marketing, and use of patient surveys as an evaluation tool to unduly influence medical providers' decision-making. Providers also have significant concerns regarding scrutiny from their medical board and exposure to medicolegal liability.

Content

To provide the basis for best practice recommendations, several aspects of modern opioid prescribing practice require review. The practicing clinician should be aware of: (a) the pervasiveness of current opioid prescribing within the US; (b) the availability and applicability of clinical tools used to assess patient risk; (c) the new guidelines designed to facilitate appropriate and safe medical use of opioids; (d) the incorporation of clinical tools and best documentation practices to reduce medicolegal exposure.

Summary

On completion of this review, the reader should be able to recognize the magnitude of the problem of opioid over-prescribing in the US and identify several patient risk factors for opioid misuse, abuse, and/or diversion. Specifically, better familiarity with the recently published CDC guidelines for opioid prescribing will help ensure the adoption of best-use practices that maximize therapeutic efficacy while attenuating the possibility of harm to patients. A thorough review of the legal principles and risk-mitigation strategies relevant to opioid prescribing will also lessen the clinician's exposure to medicolegal liability.

Risk factors for addiction among patients receiving prescribed opioids: a systematic review protocol

BACKGROUND

Opioid addiction prevention has become an urgent public health priority, with several countries declaring a state of emergency due to rising death tolls from opioid abuse. Reducing the risk of developing addiction among opioid-naïve patients exposed to prescribed opioids during the process of medical care may be an important primary prevention strategy. Our objective is to synthesize the available evidence about factors associated with the development of addiction among patients first exposed to prescribed opioids, with a focus on opioid-naïve patients.

METHODS

We will perform a systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and other databases in collaboration with a health information specialist using a comprehensive search strategy. We will also supplement our search with a scan of the grey literature to identify relevant ongoing and unpublished studies. We will include studies reporting on risk factors for opioid addiction in patients prescribed opioid analgesic therapy through a prescription from a licensed medical professional, with a focus on opioid-naïve patients. We will exclude studies focusing on patients who are first exposed to illicit opioids, those who use prescription opioids for cancer pain, and/or who are palliative. Two reviewers will independently review titles, abstracts, and full texts for inclusion and exclusion criteria. They will then extract data from included full texts using standardized piloted data extraction forms and assess study quality through risk of bias assessment. We will synthesize the effect sizes of risk factors derived from clinically homogenous studies with similar designs and the remaining ones qualitatively.

DISCUSSION

Understanding risk factors for opioid addiction among patients who require analgesia has the potential to inform clinical care and opioid prescribing guidelines aiming to reduce opioid addiction. We will also use this information as a starting point for developing interventions for primary prevention.