What proportion of patients with chronic noncancer pain are prescribed an opioid medicine? Systematic review and meta-regression of observational studies

Association of Regular Opioid Use With Incident Dementia and Neuroimaging Markers of Brain Health in Chronic Pain Patients: Analysis of UK Biobank

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to investigate the association of regular opioid use, compared with non-opioid analgesics, with incident dementia and neuroimaging outcomes among chronic pain patients.

DESIGN

The primary design is a prospective cohort study. To triangulate evidence, we also conducted a nested case-control study analyzing opioid prescriptions and a cross-sectional study analyzing neuroimaging outcomes.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Dementia-free UK Biobank participants with chronic pain and regular analgesic use.

MEASUREMENTS

Chronic pain status and regular analgesic use were captured using self-reported questionnaires and verbal interviews. Opioid prescription data were obtained from primary care records. Dementia cases were ascertained using primary care, hospital, and death registry records. Propensity score-matched Cox proportional hazards analysis, conditional logistic regression, and linear regression were applied to the data in the prospective cohort, nested case-control, and cross-sectional studies, respectively.

RESULTS

Prospective analyses revealed that regular opioid use, compared with non-opioid analgesics, was associated with an increased dementia risk over the 15-year follow-up (Hazard ratio [HR], 1.18 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.08-1.30]; Absolute rate difference [ARD], 0.44 [95% CI: 0.19-0.71] per 1000 person-years; Wald χ2 = 3.65; df = 1; p <0.001). The nested case-control study suggested that a higher number of opioid prescriptions was associated with an increased risk of dementia (1 to 5 prescriptions: OR = 1.21, 95% CI: 1.07-1.37, Wald χ2 = 3.02, df = 1, p = 0.003; 6 to 20: OR = 1.27, 95% CI: 1.08-1.50, Wald χ2 = 2.93, df = 1, p = 0.003; more than 20: OR = 1.43, 95% CI: 1.23-1.67, Wald χ2 = 4.57, df = 1, p < 0.001). Finally, neuroimaging analyses revealed that regular opioid use was associated with lower total grey matter and hippocampal volumes, and higher white matter hyperintensities volumes.

CONCLUSION

Regular opioid use in chronic pain patients was associated with an increased risk of dementia and poorer brain health when compared to non-opioid analgesic use. These findings imply a need for re-evaluation of opioid prescription practices for chronic pain patients and, if further evidence supports causality, provide insights into strategies to mitigate the burden of dementia.

Understanding general practitioners' prescribing choices to patients with chronic low back pain: a discrete choice experiment

BACKGROUND

Although NSAIDs are recommended as a first line analgesic treatment, opioids are very commonly prescribed to patients with low back pain (LBP) despite risks of harms.

AIM

This study aimed to determine factors contributing to general practitioners' (GPs') prescribing choices to patients with chronic LBP in a primary care setting.

METHOD

This discrete choice experiment (DCE) presented 210 GPs with hypothetical scenarios of a patient with chronic LBP. Participants chose their preferred treatment for each choice set, either the opioid, NSAID or neither. The scenarios varied by two patient attributes; non-specific LBP or LBP with referred leg pain (sciatica) and number of comorbidities. The three treatment attributes also varied, being: the type of opioid or NSAID, degree of pain reduction and number of adverse events. The significance of each attribute in influencing clinical decisions was the primary outcome and the degree to which GPs preferred the alternative based on the number of adverse events or the amount of pain reduction was the secondary outcome.

RESULTS

Overall, GPs preferred NSAIDs (45.2%, 95% CI 38.7-51.7%) over opioids (28.8%, 95% CI 23.0-34.7%), however there was no difference between the type of NSAID or opioid preferred. Additionally, the attributes of pain reduction and adverse events did not influence a GP's choice between NSAIDs or opioids for patients with chronic LBP.

CONCLUSION

GPs prefer prescribing NSAIDs over opioids for a patient with chronic low back pain regardless of patient factors of comorbidities or the presence of leg pain (i.e. sciatica).

Opioid tapering and mental health crisis in older adults

BACKGROUND

Opioid tapering and discontinuation have increased in recent years with the implementation of national prescribing guidelines. This study aimed to examine the relationship between opioid tapering velocity and mental health crisis events in older Medicare beneficiaries.

METHODS

A nested case-control study was conducted using the 2012-2018, 5% national Medicare claims data. Older adults with chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) who were receiving long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) were included in the study. Cases were defined as individuals experiencing mental health crisis events; controls were identified using incidence density sampling. The opioid tapering velocity was measured in the 120-day hazard period that yielded a monthly percentage of dose change. Conditional logistic regression was used to assess the relationship of interest.

RESULTS

A total of 42 091 older adults with CNCP were eligible for the study. Cases (n = 952) were matched with controls in a 1:2 ratio based on age (±1 year) and time of cohort entry (±30 days). A higher percentage of controls (67.65%) were on steady dose compared with cases (59.03%). In the adjusted model, tapering (aOR = 1.36; 95% CI: 1.02-1.83), rapid tapering (aOR = 1.45; 95% CI: 1.11-1.91), and dose escalation (aOR = 1.78; 95% CI: 1.32-2.39) were significantly associated with the mental health crisis, compared with steady dose.

CONCLUSION

Both opioid tapering and dose escalation are associated with mental health crisis events. Patient-driven and gradual dose tapering, as recommended by prescribing guidelines, should be promoted to prevent mental health crisis events among older adults on LTOT.

Prevalence of Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drugs Prescribed for Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies

OBJECTIVE

Our systematic review aimed to investigate the proportion of participants with osteoarthritis who were prescribed nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) by their health care provider.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for observational studies reporting NSAID prescribing to participants with diagnosed osteoarthritis of any region. Risk of bias was assessed using a tool designed for observational studies measuring prevalence. Random and fixed-effects meta-analysis was used. Meta-regression investigated study-level factors associated with prescribing. The overall evidence quality was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria.

RESULTS

Fifty-one studies were included, published between 1989 and 2022, with 6,494,509 participants. The mean age of participants was 64.7 years (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 62.4, 67.0; n = 34 studies). Most studies were from Europe and Central Asia (n = 23 studies), and North America (n = 12 studies). Most studies were judged to be at low risk of bias (75%). Heterogeneity was eliminated when removing studies with a high risk of bias, to give a pooled estimate of NSAIDs prescribing to participants with osteoarthritis of 43.8% (95% CI 36.8, 51.1; moderate quality of evidence). Meta-regression determined that prescribing was associated with year (decreased prescribing over time; P = 0.05) and geographic region (P = 0.03; higher in Europe and Central Asia and in South Asia than in North America) but not with clinical setting.

CONCLUSION

Data from over 6.4 million participants with osteoarthritis between 1989 and 2022 indicate that NSAID prescribing has decreased over time and that prescribing differs between geographic locations.

Examining buprenorphine diversion through a harm reduction lens: an agent-based modeling study

BACKGROUND

Recent policies have lessened restrictions around prescribing buprenorphine-naloxone (buprenorphine) for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD). The primary concern expressed by critics of these policies is the potential for buprenorphine diversion. However, the population-level effects of increased buprenorphine diversion are unclear. If replacing the use of heroin or fentanyl, use of diverted buprenorphine could be protective.

METHODS

Our study aim was to estimate the impact of buprenorphine diversion on opioid overdose using an agent-based model calibrated to North Carolina. We simulated the progression of opioid misuse and opioid-related outcomes over a 5-year period. Our status quo scenario assumed that 50% of those prescribed buprenorphine diverted at least one dose per week to other individuals with OUD and 10% of individuals with OUD used diverted buprenorphine at least once per week. A controlled prescription only scenario assumed that no buprenorphine would be diverted, while an increased diversion scenario assumed that 95% of those prescribed buprenorphine diverted and 50% of individuals with OUD used diverted buprenorphine. We assumed that use of diverted buprenorphine replaced the use of other opioids for that day. Sensitivity analyses increased the risk of overdose when using diverted buprenorphine, increased the frequency of diverted buprenorphine use, and simulated use of diverted buprenorphine by opioid-naïve individuals. Scenarios were compared on opioid overdose-related outcomes over the 5-year period.

RESULTS

Our status quo scenario predicted 10,658 (credible interval [CI]: 9699-11,679) fatal opioid overdoses. A scenario simulating controlled prescription only of buprenorphine (i.e., no diversion) resulted in 10,741 (9895-11,650) fatal opioid overdoses versus 10,301 (9439-11,244) within a scenario simulating increased diversion. Compared to the status quo, the controlled prescription only scenario resulted in a similar number of fatal overdoses, while the scenario with increased diversion of buprenorphine resulted in 357 (3.35%) fewer fatal overdoses. Even when increasing overdose risk while using diverted buprenorphine and incorporating use by opioid naïve individuals, increased diversion did not increase overdoses compared to a scenario with no buprenorphine diversion.

CONCLUSIONS

A similar number of opioid overdoses occurred under modeling conditions with increased rates of buprenorphine diversion among persons with OUD, with non-statistical trends toward lower opioid overdoses. These results support existing calls for low- to no-barrier access to buprenorphine for persons with OUD.

Efficacy and Safety of Naloxegol in Patients with Chronic Non-Cancer Pain Who Experience Opioid-Induced Constipation: A Pooled Analysis of Two Global, Randomized Controlled Studies

Objective

This study evaluates the onset, magnitude, and consistency of improvement of opioid-induced constipation (OIC) symptoms with naloxegol treatment.

Methods

This was a pooled analysis of two Phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies (KODIAC-04/05, NCT01309841/NCT01323790) in patients with chronic non-cancer pain and OIC treated with naloxegol 25mg or 12.5mg daily. This analysis assessed improvements in response rates, frequency of spontaneous bowel movement (SBM) and complete SBMs (CSBM), OIC constipation symptoms (straining, stool consistency), time to first post-dose SBM and CSBM, and onset of adverse events over the 12-week period.

Subjects

The population of 1337 subjects had a mean age of 52 years and mean duration of opioid use of 3.6 years at baseline. Mean SBM frequency was 1.4/week.

Results

Naloxegol 25mg and 12.5mg demonstrated significantly higher response rates vs placebo (PBO) [41.9% (P < 0.001), 37.8% (P = 0.008), 29.4% respectively]. Rapid (within 1 week) and sustained (over 12 weeks) symptom improvement was significantly greater for naloxegol vs PBO (P < 0.05). Both doses showed statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in straining, stool consistency, number of SBMs and CSBMs/wk. Significantly shorter times to first post-dose SBM and CSBM were observed with naloxegol vs PBO (SBM HR: 25mg = 1.90, 12.5mg= 1.60; CSBM HR: 25mg = 1.42, 12.5mg = 1.36; P < 0.001 for each regimen). Adverse events occurred more frequently in the naloxegol 25mg group and were most frequently reported during the first week.

Conclusion

In patients with chronic non-cancer pain, naloxegol 25mg and 12.5mg demonstrated significantly higher response rates and rapid and sustained improvements in OIC symptoms compared with PBO.

Opioid Initiation Within One Year After Starting a Digital Musculoskeletal (MSK) Program: An Observational, Longitudinal Study with Comparison Group

Background

In-person, conservative care may decrease opioid use for chronic musculoskeletal (MSK) pain, but the impact of digitally delivered conservative care on opioid use is unknown. This study examines associations between a digital MSK program and opioid initiation and prescriptions among opioid naive adults with chronic MSK pain.

Methods

This observational study used commercial medical and pharmacy claims data to compare digital MSK program members to matched physical therapy (PT) patients. Outcomes were any opioid prescriptions and opioid prescriptions per 100 participants within the 12-months after starting a digital MSK program. After propensity-score matching, we conducted multivariate regression models that controlled for demographic, comorbidity, and baseline MSK healthcare use.

Results

The study included 4195 members and 4195 matched PT patients. For opioid initiation, 7.89% (95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 7.07%, 8.71%) of members had opioid prescriptions within 12 months after starting the digital MSK program versus 13.64% (95% CI: 12.60%, 14.67%) of matched PT patients (p < 0.001). Members had significantly fewer opioid prescriptions (16.73 per 100 participants; 95% CI: 14.11, 19.36) versus PT patients (22.36 per 100 participants; 95% CI: 19.99, 24.73). Members had lower odds (OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.45, 0.60) of initiating opioids and significantly fewer prescriptions per 100 participants (beta: -6.40, 95% CI: -9.88, -2.93) versus PT patients after controlling for available confounding factors.

Conclusion

An MSK program that delivers conservative care digitally may be a promising approach for decreasing opioid initiation among individuals with chronic MSK pain given the limitations of the observational design and matching on only available covariates.

Analgesic Effect of Buprenorphine for Chronic Noncancer Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Buprenorphine is a partial agonist at the µ-opioid receptor and an antagonist at the delta and kappa opioid receptors. It has high affinity and low intrinsic activity at the µ-opioid receptor. Buprenorphine demonstrates no ceiling effect for clinical analgesia, but demonstrates this for respiratory depression and euphoria. It may provide effective analgesia while producing less adverse effects, making it a promising opioid analgesic. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to examine the analgesic efficacy of buprenorphine for patients with chronic noncancer pain.

METHODS

PubMed, MEDLNE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched up to January 2022. Randomized controlled trials were included if they compared buprenorphine versus placebo or active analgesic in patients with chronic noncancer pain, where pain score was an outcome. Nonrandomized controlled trials, observational studies, qualitative studies, case reports, and commentaries were excluded. Two investigators independently performed the literature search, study selection, and data collection. A random-effects model was used. The primary outcome was the effect of buprenorphine on pain intensity in patients with chronic noncancer pain based on standardized mean difference (SMD) in pain score. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Grade of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

RESULTS

Two separate literature searches were conducted for patients with and without opioid use disorder (OUD). Only one study met the search criteria for those with OUD. Fourteen randomized controlled trials were included for those without OUD. Buprenorphine was associated with reduced pain score (SMD = -0.368, P < .001, I 2 = 89.37%) compared to placebo or active analgesic. Subgroup meta-analyses showed statistically significant differences in favor of buprenorphine versus placebo (SMD = -0.404, P < .001), for chronic low back pain (SMD = -0.383, P < .001), when administered via the transdermal route (SMD = -0.572, P = .001), via the buccal route (SMD = -0.453, P < .001), with length of follow-up lasting <12 weeks (SMD = -0.848, P < .05), and length of follow-up lasting 12 weeks or more (SMD = -0.415, P < .001). There was no significant difference when compared to active analgesic (SMD = 0.045, P > .05). Quality of evidence was low to moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

Buprenorphine was associated with a statistically significant and small reduction in pain intensity compared to placebo. Both the transdermal and buccal routes provided pain relief. There was more evidence supporting its use for chronic low back pain.

TANGO: Development of Consumer Information Leaflets to Support TAperiNG of Opioids in Older Adults with Low Back Pain and Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis

INTRODUCTION

Globally, the rate of opioid prescription is high for chronic musculoskeletal conditions despite guidelines recommending against their use as their adverse effects outweigh their modest benefit. Deprescribing opioids is a complex process that can be hindered by multiple prescriber- and patient-related barriers. These include fear of the process of, or outcomes from, weaning medications, or a lack of ongoing support. Thus, involving patients, their carers, and healthcare professionals (HCPs) in the development of consumer materials that can educate and provide support for patients and HCPs over the deprescribing process is critical to ensure that the resources have high readability, usability, and acceptability to the population of interest.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to (1) develop two educational consumer leaflets to support opioid tapering in older people with low back pain (LBP) and hip or knee osteoarthritis (HoKOA), and (2) evaluate the perceived usability, acceptability, and credibility of the consumer leaflets from the perspective of consumers and HCPs.

DESIGN

This was an observational survey involving a consumer review panel and an HCP review panel.

PARTICIPANTS

30 consumers (and/or their carers) and 20 HCPs were included in the study. Consumers were people older than 65 years of age who were currently experiencing LBP or HoKOA, and with no HCP background. Carers were people who provided unpaid care, support, or assistance to an individual meeting the inclusion criteria for consumers. HCPs included physiotherapists (n = 9), pharmacists (n = 7), an orthopaedic surgeon (n = 1), a rheumatologist (n = 1), nurse practitioner (n = 1) and a general practitioner (n = 1), all with at least three years of clinical experience and who reported working closely with this target patient population within the last 12 months.

METHODS

Prototypes of two educational consumer leaflets (a brochure and a personal plan) were developed by a team of LBP, OA, and geriatric pharmacotherapy researchers and clinicians. The leaflet prototypes were evaluated by two separate chronological review panels involving (1) consumers and/or their carers, and (2) HCPs. Data collection for both panels occurred via an online survey. Outcomes were the perceived usability, acceptability, and credibility of the consumer leaflets. Feedback received from the consumer panel was used to refine the leaflets, before circulating the leaflets for further review by the HCP panel. Additional feedback from the HCP review panel was then used to refine the final versions of the consumer leaflets.

RESULTS

Both consumers and HCPs perceived the leaflets and personal plan to be usable, acceptable, and credible. Consumers rated the brochure against several categories, which scored between 53 and 97% positive responses. Similarly, the overall feedback provided by HCPs was 85-100% positive. The modified System Usability Scale scores obtained from HCPs was 55-95% positive, indicating excellent usability. Feedback for the personal plan from both HCPs and consumers was largely positive, with consumers providing the highest positive ratings (80-93%). While feedback for HCPs was also high, we did identify that prescribers were hesitant to provide the plan to patients frequently (no positive responses).

CONCLUSIONS

This study led to the development of a leaflet and personal plan to support the reduction of opioid use in older people with LBP or HoKOA. The development of the consumer leaflets incorporated feedback provided by HCPs and consumers to maximise clinical effectiveness and future intervention implementation.

Chronic pain experience through COVID-19: a comparison of reports prior and during the early stages of the pandemic

ABSTRACT

The impacts of COVID-19 and imposed restrictions on individuals with chronic noncancer pain continue to emerge, varying across countries. More recent research (including with longitudinal designs) suggests that the pandemic may not have such a disproportionate effect on chronic noncancer pain and its management as first thought. This longitudinal study, with assessments before the pandemic (2019) and early during the pandemic (May-July 2020), examined changes in validated measures of pain severity, pain interference, prescription opioid misuse, and mental health symptoms. Patients (N = 236) self-reported significant improvements in pain severity, pain interference, pain self-efficacy, pain catastrophizing, prescription opioid misuse, depression, and anxiety symptoms over time. Approximately 30% and 33% of patients achieved minimally important reductions (10% change) in pain severity and pain interference, respectively. In follow-up exploratory analyses, prepandemic sociodemographic and psychological factors predictive of 10% improved (vs 10% worse) pain severity and interference were investigated in logistic regressions. Reduction in pain interference was predicted by current employment, older age, and higher pain self-efficacy. There were no significant predictors of reduction in pain severity. The impact of COVID-19 on patients' pain experience and mental health was negligible in the early stages of the pandemic, and findings suggest improvements through the period. Targeted interventions that promote the protective factor of pain self-efficacy and build resilience may buffer patients' future response to the pandemic because it evolves as a part of our new normal. Targeted social determinants of health interventions that direct resources toward maintaining employment could also be important.

Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of antidepressants for pain in adults: overview of systematic reviews

OBJECTIVE

To provide a comprehensive overview of the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of antidepressants for pain according to condition.

DESIGN

Overview of systematic reviews.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to 20 June 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Systematic reviews comparing any antidepressant with placebo for any pain condition in adults.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers independently extracted data. The main outcome measure was pain; for headache disorders it was frequency of headaches. Continuous pain outcomes were converted into a scale of 0 (no pain) to 100 (worst pain) and were presented as mean differences (95% confidence intervals). Dichotomous outcomes were presented as risk ratios (95% confidence intervals). Data were extracted from the time point closest to the end of treatment. When end of treatment was too variable across trials in a review, data were extracted from the outcome or time point with the largest number of trials and participants. Secondary outcomes were safety and tolerability (withdrawals because of adverse events). Findings were classified from each comparison as efficacious, not efficacious, or inconclusive. Certainty of evidence was assessed with the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation framework.

RESULTS

26 reviews (156 unique trials and >25 000 participants) were included. These reviews reported on the efficacy of eight antidepressant classes covering 22 pain conditions (42 distinct comparisons). No review provided high certainty evidence on the efficacy of antidepressants for pain for any condition. 11 comparisons (nine conditions) were found where antidepressants were efficacious, four with moderate certainty evidence: serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) for back pain (mean difference -5.3, 95% confidence interval -7.3 to -3.3), postoperative pain (-7.3, -12.9 to -1.7), neuropathic pain (-6.8, -8.7 to -4.8), and fibromyalgia (risk ratio 1.4, 95% confidence interval 1.3 to 1.6). For the other 31 comparisons, antidepressants were either not efficacious (five comparisons) or the evidence was inconclusive (26 comparisons).

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence of efficacy of antidepressants was found in 11 of the 42 comparisons included in this overview of systematic reviews-seven of the 11 comparisons investigated the efficacy of SNRIs. For the other 31 comparisons, antidepressants were either inefficacious or evidence on efficacy was inconclusive. The findings suggest that a more nuanced approach is needed when prescribing antidepressants for pain conditions.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42022311073.

Development and initial application of a harmonised multi-jurisdiction work injury compensation database

Objectives

Workers' compensation schemes provide funding for wage replacement and healthcare for injured and ill workers. In Australia, workers' compensation schemes operate independently in different jurisdictions, making comparisons of health service use challenging. We sought to develop and deploy a new database of health service and income support data, harmonising data from multiple Australian workers' compensation jurisdictions.

Methods

We worked with workers' compensation authorities from six Australian jurisdictions to combine claims, healthcare, medicines and wage replacement data for a sample of compensated workers with claims for musculoskeletal conditions. We designed a structured relational database and developed a bespoke health services coding scheme to harmonise data across jurisdictions.

Results

The Multi-Jurisdiction Workers' Compensation Database contains four data sets: claims, services, medicines and wage replacement. The claims data set contains 158,946 claims for low back pain (49.6%), limb fracture (23.8%) and non-specific limb conditions (26.7%). The services data set contains a total of 4.2 million cleaned and harmonised services including doctors (29.9%), physical therapists (56.3%), psychological therapists (2.8%), diagnostic procedures (5.5%) and examinations and assessments (5.6%). The medicines data set contains 524,380 medicine dispenses, with 208,504 (39.8%) dispenses for opioid analgesics.

Conclusions

The development of this database presents potential opportunities to gain a greater understanding of health service use in the Australian workers' compensation sector, to measure the impact of policy change on health services and to provide a method for further data harmonisation. Future efforts could seek to conduct linkage with other data sources.

"Frustrated with the whole system": a qualitative framework analysis of the issues faced by people accessing health services for chronic pain

BACKGROUND

Chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) is complex and often requires multimodal management comprising of both pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments. To inform delivery of CNCP management, it is important to understand how current health services providing non-pharmacological treatments are accessed by exploring the experiences of people attempting to access services. In doing so, this study sought to explore the underlying drivers of service access barriers.

METHODS

This study explored the experiences of Australians accessing services for CNCP using semi-structured telephone interviews undertaken between 01 October 2020 and 31 March 2021. Thematic analysis was guided by Levesque et al.'s 2013 conceptual framework of access to health care, with emerging themes mapped to five dimensions of accessibility and corresponding abilities of consumers: Approachability/Ability to perceive; Acceptability/Ability to seek; Availability and Accommodation/Ability to reach; Affordability/Ability to pay; and Appropriateness/Ability to engage.

RESULTS

The 26 participants (aged 24-78 years, 22 female) reported accessing a range of services including general practitioners (GP), allied health services, and specialised pain clinics, for a variety of conditions. Three themes were mapped to accessibility dimensions (in brackets): 'GP as guide or gatekeeper' (Approachability); 'Outside of my control' (Availability and Accommodation; Affordability); and 'Services aren't always good enough' (Appropriateness). A fourth identified theme illustrated how participants responded to encountering these barriers: 'Leading my own pain management'. Participant experiences suggest problems with the translation of contemporary pain management principles into practice, including continued application of biomedical health models as opposed to the biopsychosocial model, and demonstrate systemic issues with service delivery, including a lack of benchmarking of specialised services.

CONCLUSIONS

The identified themes highlight several evidence-to-practice gaps in the delivery of health services for people with CNCP in Australia. To address these gaps, there is a need for improved clinician training, increased investment in specialised pain services, and development of clear primary care pathways for CNCP management for evidence-based multimodal pain management to be accessible and equitable.

Trends in opioid and non-opioid treatment for chronic non-cancer pain and cancer pain among privately insured adults in the United States, 2012–2019

Recent clinical guidelines have emphasized non-opioid treatments in lieu of prescription opioids for chronic non-cancer pain, exempting cancer patients from these recommendations. In this study, we determine trends in opioid and non-opioid treatment among privately insured adults with chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) or cancer. Using administrative claims data from IBM MarketScan Research Databases, we identified privately-insured adults who were continuously enrolled in insurance for at least one calendar year from 2012 to 2019. We identified individuals with CNCP diagnosis, defined as a diagnosis of arthritis, headache, low back pain, and/or neuropathic pain, and a individuals with cancer diagnosis in a calendar year. Outcomes included receipt of any opioid, non-opioid medication, or non-pharmacologic CNCP therapy and opioid prescribing volume, MME-per-day, and days’ supply. Estimates were regression-adjusted for age, sex, and region. Between 2012 and 2019, the proportion of patients who received any opioid decreased across both groups (CNCP: 49.7 to 30.5%, p<0.01; cancer: 86.0 to 78.7%, p<0.01). Non-opioid pain medication receipt remained steady for individuals with CNCP (66.7 to 66.4%, p<0.01) and increased for individuals with cancer (74.4 to 78.8%, p<0.01), while non-pharmacologic therapy use rose among individuals with CNCP (62.4 to 66.1%, p<0.01). Among those prescribed opioids, there was a decrease in the receipt of at least one prescription with >90 MME/day (CNCP: 13.9% in 2012 to 4.9% in 2019, p<0.01; Cancer: 26.2% to 7.6%, p<0.01); >7 days of supply (CNCP: 56.3% to 30.7%, p <0.01; Cancer: 47.5% to 22.7%, p<0.01), the mean number of opioid prescriptions (CNCP: 5.2 to 3.9, p<0.01; Cancer: 4.0 to 2.7, p<0.01) and mean MME/day (CNCP: 49.9 to 38.0, p<0.01; Cancer: 62.4 to 44.7, p<0.01). Overall, from 2012–2019, opioid prescribing declined for CNCP and cancer, with larger reductions for patients with CNCP. For both groups, reductions in prescribed opioids outpaced increases in non-opioid alternatives.

Patterns of opioid dispensing and associated wage replacement duration in workers with accepted claims for low back pain: a retrospective cohort study

ABSTRACT

This study aimed to identify patterns of opioid dispensing in Australian workers with low back pain (LBP) and determine the association of dispensing patterns with wage replacement duration. Australian workers' compensation claimants with LBP and at least 1 day of wage replacement were included. We used group-based trajectory modelling to identify opioid dispensing patterns over a two-and-a-half-year period from reported LBP onset and quantile regression to compare wage replacement duration between each dispensing pattern group. Opioids were dispensed to one-third of workers with LBP (N = 3205, 33.3%) at least once during their claim. Three dispensing patterns were identified. Most had a short-term low-volume opioid dispensing pattern (N = 2166, 67.6%), whereas 798 (24.9%) had a long-term moderate-volume pattern and 241 (7.5%) had a long-term high-volume pattern. Workers with dispensed opioids had significantly longer wage replacement duration than those without dispensed opioids (median [weeks]: 63.6 vs 7.1, respectively). In addition, moderate-volume and high-volume long-term dispensing groups had significantly longer wage replacement duration compared with the short-term dispensing group (median [weeks]: 126.9, 126.0, and 30.7, respectively). Without controlling for pain severity, these results offer limited evidence that opioids lead to longer wage replacement duration. Further research controlling for pain severity, psychosocial factors, and recovery expectations is required to confirm whether the relationship between opioid dispensing pattern and wage replacement duration is causal in nature.

Comparative benefits and harms of individual opioids for chronic non-cancer pain: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials

BACKGROUND

Most systematic reviews of opioids for chronic pain have pooled treatment effects across individual opioids under the assumption they provide similar benefits and harms. We examined the comparative effects of individual opioids for chronic non-cancer pain through a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to March 2021 for studies that enrolled patients with chronic non-cancer pain, randomised them to receive different opioids, or opioids vs placebo, and followed them for at least 4 weeks. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

We identified 82 eligible trials (22 619 participants) that evaluated 14 opioids. Compared with placebo, several opioids showed superiority to others for analgesia and improvement in physical function; however, when restricted to pooled-effect estimates supported by moderate certainty evidence, no differences between opioids were evident. Among opioids with moderate certainty evidence, all increased the risk of gastrointestinal adverse events compared with placebo, although no opioids were more harmful than others. Low to very low certainty evidence suggests that extended-release vs immediate-release opioids may provide similar benefits for pain relief and physical functioning, and gastrointestinal harms.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings support the pooling of effect estimates across different types and formulations of opioids to inform effectiveness for chronic non-cancer pain.

Use of pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments for chronic noncancer pain among people using opioids: a longitudinal cohort study

ABSTRACT

Although multimodal management of chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) is recommended, long-term treatment utilization patterns among people using opioids are not well known. The Pain and Opioids IN Treatment study recruited Australian adults receiving opioids for CNCP for more than 6 weeks from community pharmacies. Pharmacological (opioid and nonopioid analgesics and psychotropic medicines) and nonpharmacological (physical, mental health, and specialized) treatments used in the previous 12 months and 30 days were collected annually over 4 years (2015-2018). Associations were explored between 30-day treatment use and sociodemographic characteristics and pain measures. Overall, 1334 participants completed at least one annual follow-up. The median pain severity (5.0, interquartile range [IQR] 3.8 to 6.3) and pain interference scores (5.7, IQR 3.9-7.3) indicated moderate pain throughout the study period, despite most participants reporting the use of nonopioid pharmacological (12 month: 97.6% and 30 day: 96.8%) and nonpharmacological treatments (12 month: 91.8% and 30 day: 66.1%). Some treatment use was inconsistent with guidelines: ongoing nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and sedative-hypnotic use were common, whereas fewer people engaged with pain management programs (12 month: 22.3%). Private health insurance was associated with using physical (adjusted odds ratio 1.61, 99.5% confidence intervals 1.15-2.24) and specialized nonpharmacological treatments (adjusted odds ratio 1.47, 99.5% confidence intervals 1.14-1.91). This study demonstrates that many Australians taking opioids long-term for CNCP also use nonopioid pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments. The use of pharmacological treatments including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, psychotropic medicines, and gabapentinoids, outside guidelines, warrants review. Furthermore, despite Australia's universal healthcare scheme subsidising some nonpharmacological treatments, overall use of these treatments was associated with having private health insurance, highlighting a need for more equitable service provision.

Effectiveness of non-opioid interventions to reduce opioid withdrawal symptoms in patients with chronic pain: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Dealing with the opioid crisis, medical doctors are keen to learn how to best treat opioid dependency in patients with chronic non-cancer pain. Opioid replacement therapy is commonly used, but success rates vary widely. Since many patients still experience severe withdrawal symptoms, additional interventions are necessary.

OBJECTIVE

To review the effectiveness of interventions in the treatment of withdrawal symptoms during opioid tapering or acute withdrawal in patients with long-term non-cancer pain.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted in Embase.com, MEDLINE, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Cochrane CENTRAL register of trials. Studies eligible for inclusion were (non-)randomized controlled trials in adults with long-term opioid prescriptions for non-cancer pain. Included trials had to compare a non-opioid intervention to placebo, usual care, no treatment, or non-opioid drug and had to report on withdrawal symptoms as an outcome. Study quality was assessed with the 2.0 Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) tool. Evidence quality was rated following the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

One trial (n = 21, some concerns regarding RoB) compared Varenicline to placebo. There was no statistically significant between-group reduction of withdrawal symptoms (moderate-quality evidence).

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence from clinical trials on interventions reducing withdrawal symptoms is scarce. Based on one trial with a small sample size, no firm conclusion can be drawn. Meanwhile, doctors are in dire need for therapeutic options to tackle withdrawal symptoms while tapering patients with prescription opioid dependence. We hope this review draws attention to this unfortunate research gap so that future research can provide doctors with answers.

OPAL: a randomised, placebo-controlled trial of opioid analgesia for the reduction of pain severity in people with acute spinal pain—a statistical analysis plan

Background

Low back and neck pain are a leading cause of disease burden globally. Opioids are recommended in guidelines for acute low back and neck pain; however, there is a lack of compelling efficacy data to support this.

Methods

The OPAL trial is a prospectively registered, triple-blinded, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Patients with acute (≤12 weeks duration) back and/or neck pain receive guideline care plus either an opioid (oxycodone + naloxone, up to 20 mg per day) or a placebo for up to 6 weeks or earlier, if pain is resolved. The primary outcome is pain measured using the Pain Severity Score of the Brief Pain Inventory with the primary time point being 6 weeks. Secondary outcomes include physical function, time to recovery, quality of life, adverse events and risk of opioid misuse. Outcomes are collected at weeks 2, 4, 6, 12, 26 and 52. Analysis will be done on an intention-to-treat principle. p values of < 0.05 will be considered significant and 95% confidence intervals will be reported. Repeated-measures linear mixed models will be used to assess the effect of the treatment group on the primary outcome and continuous secondary outcomes. Adverse events will be compared between groups using Fisher’s exact test. Cost-effectiveness analyses will be conducted if a treatment effect on pain is seen at week 6. Subgroup analyses will be performed to assess whether pain duration and pain location are treatment effect modifiers.

Discussion

The OPAL trial will provide important evidence about whether a short course of opioids is effective in the treatment of acute non-specific low back and/or neck pain. This pre-specified statistical analysis plan details the methodology for the analysis of the OPAL trial results.

Trial registration

ACTRN12615000775516. The trial has completed recruitment. Follow-up on the last patient will be completed in March 2022.

Determinants of long-term opioid prescribing in an urban population- a cross sectional study

BACKGROUND

Opioid prescribing has more than doubled in the UK between 1998 and 2016. Potential adverse health implications include dependency, falls and increased health expenditure.

AIM

To describe the predictors of long-term opioid prescribing (LTOP), (≥3 opioid prescriptions in a 90-day period).

DESIGN AND SETTING

A retrospective cross-sectional study in 41 General Practices in South London.

METHOD

Multi-level multivariable logistic regression to investigate the determinants of LTOP.

RESULTS

2,679 (0.8%) out of 320,639 registered patients ≥18 years were identified as having LTOP. Patients Were most likely to have LTOP, if: they had ≥5 long term conditions (LTCs) (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 36.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 30.4-43.8) or 2-4 LTCs (AOR 13.8, CI 11.9-16.1), in comparison to no LTCs, ≥75 years compared to 18-24 years (AOR 12.31, CI 7.1-21.5), smokers compared to non-smokers (AOR 2.2, CI 2.0-2.5), females compared to males (AOR 1.9, CI 1.7-2.0) and in the most deprived deprivation quintile (AOR 1.6, CI 1.4-1.8) compared to the least deprived. In a separate model examining individual long-term conditions (LTCs), the strongest associations for LTOP were noted for sickle cell disease (SCD) (AOR 18.4, CI 12.8-26.4), osteoarthritis (AOR 3.0, CI 2.8-3.3), rheumatoid arthritis (AOR 2.8, CI 2.2-3.4), depression (AOR 2.6, CI 2.3-2.8) and multiple sclerosis (OR 2.5, CI 1.4-4.4).

CONCLUSION

LTOP was significantly higher in those aged ≥75 years, with multi-morbidity or specific LTCs: sickle cell disease, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, depression, and multiple sclerosis. These characteristics may enable the design of targeted interventions to reduce LTOP.

A pharmacist-led intervention to improve the management of opioids in a general practice: a qualitative evaluation of participant interviews

Background Opioid prescribing has escalated, particularly long-term in chronic noncancer pain. Innovative models of care have been recommended to augment regulatory and harm-minimisation strategies and to review the safety and benefits of opioids for the individual patient. Medication stewardship and pharmacist integration are evolving approaches for general practice. Aim To explore enablers, barriers, and outcomes of a pharmacist-led intervention to improve opioid management in general practice, from the perspectives of general practitioners (GPs) and practice personnel. Method The study was part of a mixed-methods investigation into a general practice pharmacist pilot. Qualitative data relevant to opioids were analysed. Data from 13 semi-structured interviews were coded, analysed iteratively and thematically, and interpreted conceptually through the framework of Opioid Stewardship fundamentals proposed by the National Quality Forum. Results Seven themes and 14 subthemes aligned with stewardship fundamentals. Participants considered organisational policy, supported by leadership and education, fostered collaboration and consistency and improved practice safety. Patient engagement with individualised resources, 'agreements' and 'having the conversation' with the pharmacist enabled person-centred opioid review and weaning. GPs reported greater accountability and reflection in their practices, in the broader context of opioid prescribing and dilemmas in managing patients transitioning through care. Receiving feedback on practice deprescribing outcomes encouraged participants' ongoing commitment. Patient communication was deemed an early barrier; however, learnings were applied when transferring the model to other high-risk medicines. Conclusion Improved opioid management was enabled through implementing pharmacist-led coordinated stewardship. The findings offer a practical application of guideline advice to individualise opioid deprescribing.

"The lesser of two evils": a framework analysis of consumers' perspectives on opioid deprescribing and the development of opioid deprescribing guidelines

ABSTRACT

Deprescribing opioids has been identified as an intervention to mitigate opioid harm; however, it is often challenging to implement interventions and communicate deprescribing decisions to consumers. The development of opioid deprescribing guidelines may provide guidance and support on when and how to reduce or cease opioids in routine care. This study aimed to explore the perspectives of opioid consumers on opioid deprescribing and determine factors to be considered in the development of opioid deprescribing guidelines. A purposive sample of 20 consumers using opioids for pain was recruited. Semistructured interviews were conducted, audio recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Inductive thematic analysis was undertaken, followed by a framework analysis informed by Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory. Behavioral, cognitive, and environmental factors influence consumers' attitudes and actions regarding opioid deprescribing. Significant barriers to opioid deprescribing were identified, including fears of pain and withdrawal effects, opioid-related stigma, and perceived inadequacies of the healthcare system. Improved communication between healthcare professionals and consumers regarding expectations of deprescribing and goals of care, as well as the provision of greater opportunities for consumer engagement in decision making were identified as avenues to improve the success of opioid deprescribing. For opioid deprescribing guidelines to be effective and achieve the intended goal of optimizing opioid use, consumers need to feel empowered to engage in opioid reduction or cessation. The findings of this study may facilitate a patient-centred approach for practitioners and guideline developers in creating recommendations and interventions to enable opioid deprescribing through targeting behavioral change.

Association between clusters of back and joint pain with opioid use in middle-aged community-based women: a prospective cohort study

Background

To determine the relationship between clusters of back pain and joint pain and prescription opioid dispensing.

Methods

Of 11,221 middle-aged participants from the Australian Longitudinal Study of Women’s Health, clusters of back pain and joint pain from 2001 to 2013 were identified using group-based trajectory modelling. Prescription opioid dispensing from 2003 to 2015 was identified by linking the cohort to Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme dispensing data. Multinomial logistic regression was used to examine the association between back pain and joint pain clusters and dispensing of prescription opioids. The proportion of opioids dispensed in the population attributable to back and join pain was calculated.

Results

Over 12 years, 68.5 and 72.0% women reported frequent or persistent back pain and joint pain, respectively. There were three clusters (‘none or infrequent’, ‘frequent’ and ‘persistent’) for both back pain and joint pain. Those in the persistent back pain cluster had a 6.33 (95%CI 4.38-9.16) times increased risk of having > 50 opioid prescriptions and those in persistent joint pain cluster had a 6.19 (95%CI 4.18-9.16) times increased risk of having > 50 opioid prescriptions. Frequent and persistent back and joint pain clusters together explained 41.7% (95%CI 34.9-47.8%) of prescription opioid dispensing. Women in the frequent and persistent back pain and joint pain clusters were less educated and reported more depression and physical inactivity.

Conclusion

Back pain and joint pain are major contributors to opioid prescription dispensing in community-based middle-aged women. Additional approaches to reduce opioid use, targeted at those with frequent and persistent back pain and joint pain, will be important in order to reduce the use of opioids and their consequent harm in this population.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-021-04741-4.

Prescribing Analgesics for Low Back Pain: Is There a Gender Difference?

Background: Gender differences have been described in many fields of pain. However, research is inconclusive as to gender difference in pain management. Our study aimed to investigate gender differences in prescribing analgesics for low back pain. Methods: We designed a cross-sectional study based on data originated from computerized health records. We retrieved data on low back pain diagnosis, among patients aged 18-64 years during 2016. Visits due to trauma and fracture were excluded, as were visits of patients with known neoplasm, or neurological or congenital defects. Data included demographics and the analgesics prescribed. Results: The cohort comprised 45,479 patients; of them, 55% were women. The mean age was 42.9 ± 12.6 years. Analgesics were prescribed to 49% of the men and 47% of the women (odds ratio [OR] 1.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.11). The distribution of analgesics was similar between the genders: overall, 73% nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, 23% opioids, 4% other analgesics, mainly paracetamol and dipyrone. A higher proportion of men were prescribed strong opioids than women: 17% versus 8% (OR 2.36, 95% CI 2.03-2.75). Conclusion: Men and women were similarly prescribed analgesics for low back pain. Men were more likely than women to be prescribed strong opioids. Further research is needed to evaluate the outcomes of this differential treatment.

Patterns of care for people presenting to Australian general practice with musculoskeletal complaints based on routinely collected data: protocol for an observational cohort study using the Population Level Analysis and Reporting (POLAR) database

INTRODUCTION

General practice is integral to the Australian healthcare system. Outcome Health's POpulation Level Analysis and Reporting (POLAR) database uses de-identified electronic health records to analyse general practice data in Australia. Previous studies using routinely collected health data for research have not consistently reported the codes and algorithms used to describe the population, exposures, interventions and outcomes in sufficient detail to allow replication. This paper reports a study protocol investigating patterns of care for people presenting with musculoskeletal conditions to general practice in Victoria, Australia. Its focus is on the systematic approach used to classify and select eligible records from the POLAR database to facilitate replication. This will be useful for other researchers using routinely collected health data for research.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a retrospective cohort study. Patient-related data will be obtained through electronic health records from a subset of general practices across three primary health networks (PHN) in southeastern Victoria. Data for patients with a low back, neck, shoulder and/or knee condition and who received at least one general practitioner (GP) face-to-face consultation between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2018 will be included. Data quality checks will be conducted to exclude patients with poor data recording and/or non-continuous follow-up. Relational data files with eligible and valid records will be merged to select the study cohort and the GP care received (consultations, imaging requests, prescriptions and referrals) between diagnosis and 31 December 2018. Number and characteristics of patients and GPs, and number, type and timing of imaging requests, prescriptions for pain relief and referrals to other health providers will be investigated.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval was obtained from the Cabrini and Monash University Human Research Ethics Committees (Reference Numbers 02-21-01-19 and 16975, respectively). Study findings will be reported to Outcome Health, participating PHNs, disseminated in academic journals and presented in conferences.

Medical cannabis or cannabinoids for chronic pain: a clinical practice guideline

CLINICAL QUESTION

What is the role of medical cannabis or cannabinoids for people living with chronic pain due to cancer or non-cancer causes?

CURRENT PRACTICE

Chronic pain is common and distressing and associated with considerable socioeconomic burden globally. Medical cannabis is increasingly used to manage chronic pain, particularly in jurisdictions that have enacted policies to reduce use of opioids; however, existing guideline recommendations are inconsistent, and cannabis remains illegal for therapeutic use in many countries.

RECOMMENDATION

The guideline expert panel issued a weak recommendation to offer a trial of non-inhaled medical cannabis or cannabinoids, in addition to standard care and management (if not sufficient), for people living with chronic cancer or non-cancer pain.

HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED

An international guideline development panel including patients, clinicians with content expertise, and methodologists produced this recommendation in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines using the GRADE approach. The MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation (MAGIC) provided methodological support. The panel applied an individual patient perspective.

THE EVIDENCE

This recommendation is informed by a linked series of four systematic reviews summarising the current body of evidence for benefits and harms, as well as patient values and preferences, regarding medical cannabis or cannabinoids for chronic pain.

UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATION

The recommendation is weak because of the close balance between benefits and harms of medical cannabis for chronic pain. It reflects a high value placed on small to very small improvements in self reported pain intensity, physical functioning, and sleep quality, and willingness to accept a small to modest risk of mostly self limited and transient harms. Shared decision making is required to ensure patients make choices that reflect their values and personal context. Further research is warranted and may alter this recommendation.

Opioid medicines management in primary care settings: A scoping review of quantitative studies of pharmacist activities

To undertake a scoping review of pharmacist activities in opioid medicines management in primary care settings, including those developed or led by pharmacists, or in which pharmacists were members of broader multidisciplinary teams, and to collate the activities, models of care and settings, and reported outcomes. The bibliographic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, CINAHL, SCOPUS and Web of Science were searched. Studies with quantitative evaluation and published in English were eligible. Participants were patients with any pain category or an opioid use disorder, and healthcare providers. Studies originating in hospitals or involving supply functions were not included. Screening of literature and data charting of results were undertaken by two researchers. The 51 studies included in the scoping review occurred in primary care settings collated into four categories: general practice or primary care clinics, healthcare organisations, community pharmacies and outreach services. Studies were primarily of opioid use in chronic, noncancer pain. Other indications were opioid use disorder, cancer and dental pain. Pharmacist activities targeted risk mitigation, patient and provider education and broader, strategic approaches. Patient-related outcomes included reduced opioid load, improved functionality and symptom management, enhanced access to services and medication-assisted treatments, and engagement in risk-mitigation strategies. Behaviour change of providers was demonstrated. The review has identified the significant contribution that pharmacists working in primary care settings can make to minimise harm from opioids. Strategies implemented in isolation have the potential to further reduce adverse clinical outcomes with greater collaboration and coordination, such as opioid stewardship.

The Prevalence of Opioid Analgesic Use in People with Chronic Noncancer Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies

OBJECTIVE

To review studies examining the proportion of people with chronic noncancer pain who report consuming opioids and characteristics associated with their use.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

We searched databases from inception to February 8, 2020, and conducted citation tracking. We included observational studies reporting the proportion of adults with chronic noncancer pain who used opioid analgesics. Opioids were categorized as weak (e.g., codeine) or strong (e.g., oxycodone). Study risk of bias was assessed, and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluations provided a summary of the overall quality. Results were pooled using a random-effects model. Meta-regression determined factors associated with opioid use.

RESULTS

Sixty studies (N=3,961,739) reported data on opioid use in people with chronic noncancer pain from 1990 to 2017. Of these 46, 77% had moderate risk of bias. Opioid use was reported by 26.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 23.1-30.8; moderate-quality evidence) of people with chronic noncancer pain. The use of weak opioids (17.3%; 95% CI 11.9-24.4; moderate-quality evidence) was more common than the use of strong opioids (9.8%; 95% CI, 6.8-14.0; low-quality evidence). Meta-regression determined that opioid use was associated with geographic region (P=0.02; lower in Europe than North America), but not sampling year (P=0.77), setting (P=0.06), diagnosis (P=0.34), or disclosure of funding (P=0.77).

CONCLUSIONS

Our review summarized data from over 3.9 million people with chronic noncancer pain reporting their opioid use. Between 1990 and 2017, one-quarter of people with chronic noncancer pain reported taking opioids, and this proportion did not change over time.

Is opioid therapy for chronic non-cancer pain associated with a greater risk of all-cause mortality compared to non-opioid analgesics? A systematic review of propensity score matched observational studies

BACKGROUND

The many risks associated with opioid therapy for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) have led to questions about use. This is particularly relevant for risk of increased mortality. However, underlying medical conditions of those using opioids may influence mortality findings due to confounding by indication. Similarly, non-opioid analgesics are also associated with an increased risk of mortality, too.

METHODS

We have conducted a systematic review of propensity score matched observational studies comparing mortality associated with opioid use compared to non-opioid analgesics. Clinicaltrials.gov, Google Scholar, MEDLINE and Scopus were searched from inception to July 2020. Propensity score matched observational studies comparing opioids to non-opioid analgesics in real-world settings were analysed. Primary outcome was pooled adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of all-cause death. Effects were summarized by a random effects model.

RESULTS

Four studies with seven study arms and 120,186 patients were analysed. Pooled aHR for all-cause death was 1.69 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.47, 1.95). When mortality risk was confined to out-of-hospital deaths, the pooled aHR was 2.12 (95% CI 1.46, 3.09). The most frequent cause of death was cardiovascular death. Before matching, patients with opioids were older and had more somatic diseases than patients with non-opioids. Despite extensive propensity score matchings and sensitivity analyses, all studies could not fully exclude confounding by indication.

CONCLUSIONS

Possibly, opioids are associated with an increased all-cause mortality risk compared to non-opioid analgesics. When considering treatment options for patients with CNCP, the possible risk of increased all-cause mortality with opioids should be discussed.

SIGNIFICANCE

An increased all-cause mortality associated with opioid use compared to non-opioid analgesics for CNCP was identified by a systematic review of four propensity score matched cohort studies in real-world settings. The number needed to harm for an additional excess death per 10,000 person-years was 116. Despite extensive propensity score matchings and sensitivity analyses, all studies could not fully exclude confounding by indication. The potential risk of increased all-cause mortality with opioids should be discussed with patients when considering opioid treatment.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the pharmacological, physical, and psychological treatments of pain: findings from the Chronic Pain & COVID-19 Pan-Canadian Study

INTRODUCTION

Multimodal treatment is recognized as the optimal paradigm for the management of chronic pain (CP). Careful balance between pharmacological and physical/psychological approaches is thus desirable but can be easily disrupted.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed at exploring the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on pharmacological and physical/psychological treatments of CP.

METHODS

A Pan-Canadian cross-sectional web-based study was conducted between April 16th and May 31st 2020 among adults living with CP when the country was in the ascending slope of the first COVID-19 pandemic wave.

RESULTS

A total of 2864 participants shared their treatment experience (mean age: 49.7 years and women: 83.5%). Among medication users (n = 2533), 38.3% reported changes in their pharmacological pain treatment. The main reasons were as follows: (1) changes in pain symptoms, (2) lack of access to prescribers/cancellation of medical appointments, and (3) increased medication intake in compensation for stopping physical/psychological treatments because of the pandemic. Among participants who used physical/psychological pain management approaches before the pandemic (n = 2467), 68.3% had to modify their treatments or self-management strategies. Common reasons were lack of access to clinics/exercise facilities and the need to compensate for having to stop another type of physical/psychological treatment because of the pandemic-related public health safety measures.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study underlines the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on access to pain relief, which is considered a fundamental human right. Results will help to justify resource allocation and inform the development of interventions to be better prepared for waves to come and future health crises.

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

BACKGROUND

Opioid optimisation is a global issue in Chronic Non-malignant Pain (CNMP) management.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aims to assess the effectiveness of interventions delivered by pharmacists in outpatient clinical settings, community pharmacies and primary care services in optimising opioid therapy for people with CNMP and to explore stakeholders' opinions about role of pharmacists in optimising opioid therapy.

METHODS

We conducted searches in PubMed, CINAHL, Psych Info, EMBASE, ISI Web of Science and Conference Proceedings and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts. All studies where pharmacists in outpatient clinical settings, community pharmacies and patient care services helped in optimisation of opioids in the treatment of CNMP as individuals or part of a team were included. Authors followed the 27-item PRISMA guidelines and the review was registered in PROSPERO. All authors were involved in screening and selection of studies and included studies between January 1990-June 2020. Studies not published in English language and participants with cancer pain were excluded. All the included studies were descriptively synthesized.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were included in the final data synthesis of this review and the total number of participants in all studies was 1175. Interventions by pharmacists were successful in decreasing opioid dose in 4 studies and improved patient opioid safety in 5 studies. Stakeholders considered that the role of pharmacists in optimisation of opioid therapy for people with CNMP can be promising and should be further developed.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review gives an overview of pharmacist intervention feasibility, stakeholders' opinions and possible benefits on opioid optimisation in people with CNMP in outpatient clinical settings, community pharmacies and primary care settings. However, further research is warranted, which can guide the development of new policies and guidelines for the utilisation of pharmacists to promote opioid safety in people using prescription opioids for CNMP management.

Global health policy in the 21st century: Challenges and opportunities to arrest the global disability burden from musculoskeletal health conditions

The profound burden of disease associated with musculoskeletal health conditions is well established. Despite the unequivocal disability burden and personal and societal consequences, relative to other non-communicable diseases (NCDs), system-level responses for musculoskeletal conditions that are commensurate with their burden have been lacking nationally and globally. Health policy priorities and responses in the 21st century have evolved significantly from the 20th century, with health systems now challenged by an increasing prevalence and impact of NCDs and an unprecedented rate of global population ageing. Further, health policy priorities are now strongly aligned to the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. With this background, what are the challenges and opportunities available to influence global health policy to support high-value care for musculoskeletal health conditions and persistent pain? This paper explores these issues by considering the current global health policy landscape, the role of global health networks, and progress and opportunities since the 2000-2010 Bone and Joint Decade for health policy to support improved musculoskeletal health and high-value musculoskeletal health care.