Experiencing the risk of overutilising opioids among patients with chronic non-cancer pain in ambulatory care (ERONA): the protocol of an exploratory, randomised controlled trial

Educating physicians on strong opioids by descriptive versus simulated-experience formats: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Long-term prescriptions of strong opioids for chronic noncancer pain-which are not supported by scientific evidence-suggest miscalibrated risk perceptions among those who prescribe, dispense, and take opioids. Because risk perceptions and behaviors can differ depending on whether people learn about risks through description or experience, we investigated the effects of descriptive versus simulated-experience educative formats on physicians' risk perceptions of strong opioids and their prescription behavior for managing chronic noncancer pain.

METHODS

Three hundred general practitioners and 300 pain specialists in Germany-enrolled separately in two independent exploratory randomized controlled online trials-were randomly assigned to either a descriptive format (fact box) or a simulated-experience format (interactive simulation).

PRIMARY ENDPOINTS

Objective risk perception (numerical estimates of opioids' benefits and harms), actual prescriptions of seven therapy options for managing chronic pain.

SECONDARY ENDPOINT

Implementation of intended prescriptions of seven therapy options for managing chronic pain.

RESULTS

Both formats improved the proportion of correct numerical estimates of strong opioids' benefits and harms immediately after intervention, with no notable differences between formats. Compared to description, simulated experience led to significantly lower reported actual prescription rates for strong and/or weak opioids, and was more effective at increasing prescription rates for non-drug-based therapies (e.g., means of opioid reduction) from baseline to follow-up for both general practitioners and pain specialists. Simulated experience also resulted in a higher implementation of intended behavior for some drug-based and non-drug-based therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

The two formats, which recruit different cognitive processes, may serve different risk-communication goals: If the goal is to improve exact risk perception, descriptive and simulated-experience formats are likely to be equally suitable. If, however, the goal is to boost less risky prescription habits, simulated experience may be the better choice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

DRKS00020358 (German Clinical Trials Register, first registration: 07/01/2020).

The role of simulated-experience and descriptive formats on perceiving risks of strong opioids: A randomized controlled trial with chronic noncancer pain patients

OBJECTIVES

Opioid prescription rates worldwide suggest miscalibrated risk perceptions among those who prescribe, dispense, and take opioids. Findings from cognitive science show that risk perceptions can differ systematically depending on whether people learn about risks by description or experience. We investigated the effects of descriptive and simulated experience risk formats on patients' risk perceptions and behavior regarding long-term strong opioid use.

METHODS

300 German patients with chronic noncancer pain were randomly assigned in an exploratory randomized controlled trial to either a descriptive format (fact box) or a simulated experience format (interactive simulation). Primary endpoints were subjective and objective risk perceptions and intended intake behavior.

RESULTS

Both formats significantly improved patients' objective risk perception; patients who saw the fact box estimated some outcomes more accurately (p = .031). Formats were equally effective in improving patients' subjective risk perception in terms of opioids' harms; however, patients receiving the simulation showed a greater reduction and termination of their opioid intake (p = .030) and a higher uptake of alternative therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

Descriptive and simulated experience risk formats improve risk perceptions and behavior regarding potent but highly risky drugs.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

To eliminate risky behavior, simulated experience formats may be superior to descriptive formats.

Self-Reported Practices and Emotions in Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Noncancer Pain: A Cross-Sectional Study of German Physicians

Background: The pressure on physicians when a patient seeks pain relief and their own desire to be self-effective may lead to the prescription of strong opioids for chronic noncancer pain (CNCP). This study, via physician self-reporting, aims to identify and measure (i) physician adherence to national opioid prescribing guidelines and (ii) physician emotions when a patient seeks a dosage increase of the opioid. Methods: Within a cross-sectional survey—conducted as part of a randomized controlled online intervention trial (ERONA)—600 German physicians were queried on their opioid prescribing behavior (choice and formulation of opioid, indications) for CNCP patients and their emotions to a case vignette describing a patient seeking an opioid dosage increase without signs of objective deterioration. Results: The prescription of strong opioids in this study was not always in accordance with current guidelines. When presented with a scenario in which a patient sought to have their opioid dose increased, some physicians reported negative feelings, such as either pressure (25%), helplessness (25%), anger (23%) or a combination. The risk of non-guideline-compliant prescribing behavior using the example of ultrafast-acting fentanyl for CNCP was increased when negative emotions were present (OR: 1.7; 95%-CI: 1.2−2.6; p = 0.007) or when sublingual buprenorphine was prescribed (OR: 15.4; 95%-CI: 10.1−23.3; p < 0.001). Conclusions: Physicians’ emotional self-awareness represents the first step to identify such direct reactions to patient requests and to ensure a responsible, guideline-based opioid prescription approach for the long-term well-being of the patient.

Efficacy and safety of strong opioids for chronic noncancer pain and chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analyses

ABSTRACT

In recent years, long-term prescribing and use of strong opioids for chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) has increased in high-income countries. Yet existing uncertainties, controversies, and differing recommendations make the rationale for prolonged opioid use in CNCP unclear. This systematic review and meta-analyses compared the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of strong opioids with placebo or nonopioid therapy in CNCP, with a special focus on chronic low back pain (CLBP). Systematic literature searches were performed in 4 electronic databases (MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL) in July 2019 and updated by regular alerts until December 2020. We included 16 placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials for CLBP and 5 studies (2 randomized controlled trials and 3 nonrandomized studies) of opioids vs nonopioids for CNCP in the quantitative and qualitative synthesis. Random effects pairwise meta-analyses were performed for efficacy, safety, and tolerability outcomes and subgroup analyses for treatment duration, study design, and opioid experience status. Very low to low certainty findings suggest that 4 to 15 weeks (short or intermediate term) opioid therapy in CLBP (compared with placebo) may cause clinically relevant reductions in pain but also more gastrointestinal and nervous system adverse events, with likely no effect on disability. By contrast, long-term opioid therapy (≥6 months) in CNCP may not be superior to nonopioids in improving pain or disability or pain-related function but seems to be associated with more adverse events, opioid abuse or dependence, and possibly an increase in all-cause mortality. Our findings also underline the importance and need for well-designed trials assessing long-term efficacy and safety of opioids for CNCP and CLBP.

Educating Pharmacists on the Risks of Strong Opioids With Descriptive and Simulated Experience Risk Formats: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Objectives. High opioid prescription rates in the United States and Europe suggest miscalibrated risk perceptions among those who prescribe, dispense, and take opioids. Findings from cognitive decision science suggest that risk perceptions and behaviors can differ depending on whether people learn about risks by experience or description. This study investigated effects of a descriptive versus an experience-based risk education format on pharmacists’ risk perceptions and counseling behavior in the long-term administration of strong opioids to patients with chronic noncancer pain. Methods. In an exploratory, randomized controlled online trial, 300 German pharmacists were randomly assigned to either a descriptive format (fact box) or a simulated experience format (interactive simulation). Primary Outcome Measures. 1) Objective risk perception, 2) subjective risk perception, and 3) intended and 4) actual counseling behavior. Results. Both risk formats significantly improved pharmacists’ objective risk perception, but pharmacists exposed to the fact box estimated the benefit-harm ratio more accurately than those exposed to the simulation. Both formats proved equally effective in adjusting pharmacists’ subjective risk perception toward a better recognition of opioids’ harms; however, pharmacists receiving the simulation showed a greater change in their actual counseling behavior and higher consistency between their intended and actual counseling than pharmacists receiving the fact box. Conclusion. The simulated experience format was less effective than the descriptive format in improving pharmacists’ objective risk perception, equally effective in motivating pharmacists to counsel patients on less risky treatment alternatives and more effective in changing the reported actual counseling behavior. Implications. These exploratory findings provide important insights into the relevance of the description-experience gap for drug safety and raise questions for future research regarding the specific mechanisms at work.