Multiorganizational consensus to define guiding principles for perioperative pain management in patients with chronic pain, preoperative opioid tolerance, or substance use disorder

Significant knowledge gaps exist in the perioperative pain management of patients with a history of chronic pain, substance use disorder, and/or opioid tolerance as highlighted in the US Health and Human Services Pain Management Best Practices Inter-Agency Task Force 2019 report. The report emphasized the challenges of caring for these populations and the need for multidisciplinary care and a comprehensive approach. Such care requires stakeholder alignment across multiple specialties and care settings. With the intention of codifying this alignment into a reliable and efficient processes, a consortium of 15 professional healthcare societies was convened in a year-long modified Delphi consensus process and summit. This process produced seven guiding principles for the perioperative care of patients with chronic pain, substance use disorder, and/or preoperative opioid tolerance. These principles provide a framework and direction for future improvement in the optimization and care of 'complex' patients as they undergo surgical procedures.

Buprenorphine management in the perioperative period: educational review and recommendations from a multisociety expert panel

BACKGROUND

The past two decades have witnessed an epidemic of opioid use disorder (OUD) in the USA, resulting in catastrophic loss of life secondary to opioid overdoses. Medication treatment of opioid use disorder (MOUD) is effective, yet barriers to care continue to result in a large proportion of untreated individuals. Optimal analgesia can be obtained in patients with MOUD within the perioperative period. Anesthesiologists and pain physicians can recommend and consider initiating MOUD in patients with suspected OUD at the point of care; this can serve as a bridge to comprehensive treatment and ultimately save lives.

METHODS

The Board of Directors of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, American Society of Anesthesiologists, American Academy of Pain Medicine, American Society of Addiction Medicine and American Society of Health System Pharmacists approved the creation of a Multisociety Working Group on Opioid Use Disorder, representing the fields of pain medicine, addiction, and pharmacy health sciences. An extensive literature search was performed by members of the working group. Multiple study types were included and reviewed for quality. A modified Delphi process was used to assess the literature and expert opinion for each topic, with 100% consensus being achieved on the statements and each recommendation. The consensus statements were then graded by the committee members using the United States Preventive Services Task Force grading of evidence guidelines. In addition to the consensus recommendations, a narrative overview of buprenorphine, including pharmacology and legal statutes, was performed.

RESULTS

Two core topics were identified for the development of recommendations with >75% consensus as the goal for consensus; however, the working group achieved 100% consensus on both topics. Specific topics included (1) providing recommendations to aid physicians in the management of patients receiving buprenorphine for MOUD in the perioperative setting and (2) providing recommendations to aid physicians in the initiation of buprenorphine in patients with suspected OUD in the perioperative setting.

CONCLUSIONS

To decrease the risk of OUD recurrence, buprenorphine should not be routinely discontinued in the perioperative setting. Buprenorphine can be initiated in untreated patients with OUD and acute pain in the perioperative setting to decrease the risk of opioid recurrence and death from overdose.

Improving patient-provider communication about chronic pain: development and feasibility testing of a shared decision-making tool

Background

Chronic pain has emerged as a disease in itself, affecting a growing number of people. Effective patient-provider communication is central to good pain management because pain can only be understood from the patient’s perspective. We aimed to develop a user-centered tool to improve patient-provider communication about chronic pain and assess its feasibility in real-world settings in preparation for further evaluation and distribution.

Methods

To identify and prioritize patient treatment goals for chronic pain, strategies to improve patient-provider communication about chronic pain, and facilitate implementation of the tool, we conducted nominal group technique meetings and card sorting with patients with chronic pain and experienced providers (n = 12). These findings informed the design of the PainAPP tool. Usability and beta-testing with patients (n = 38) and their providers refined the tool and assessed its feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary impact.

Results

Formative work revealed that patients felt neither respected nor trusted by their providers and focused on transforming providers’ negative attitudes towards them, whereas providers focused on gathering patient information. PainAPP incorporated areas prioritized by patients and providers: assessing patient treatment goals and preferences, functional abilities and pain, and providing patients tailored education and an overall summary that patients can share with providers.

Beta-testing involved 38 patients and their providers. Half of PainAPP users shared their summaries with their providers. Patients rated PainAPP highly in all areas. All users would recommend it to others with chronic pain; nearly all trusted the information and said it helped them think about my treatment goals (94%), understand my chronic pain (82%), make the most of my next doctor’s visit (82%), and not want to use opioids (73%). Beta-testing revealed challenges delivering the tool and summary report to patients and providers in a timely manner and obtaining provider feedback.

Conclusions

PainAPP appears feasible for use, but further adaptation and testing is needed to assess its impact on patients and providers.

Trial registration

This study was approved by the University of New England Independent Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects in Research (012616–019) and was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (protocol ID: NCT03425266) prior to enrollment. The trial was prospectively registered and was approved on February 7, 2018.

Applied nanotechnology for the management of breakthrough cancer pain

Pain, often considered the 5th vital sign, plays a significant role in the pathophysiology of cancer. Often addressed as an afterthought, untreated or under-treated cancer-related pain can have deleterious effects on a patient's physical and psychological well-being. Additionally, patients with breakthrough cancer pain tend to have more intense and more frequent background pain than patients without breakthrough pain. Currently, only oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate (OTFC) has reached the market for the treatment of cancer-related breakthrough pain. OTFC is an excellent first step in addressing the unmet need for symptomatic relief of breakthrough cancer pain; however, there is much room for improvement. Nanoscale science and engineering advancements have the long-term potential to bring revolutionary changes in society and across virtually all physical, biological and engineering disciplines, particularly medicine. Nanotechnology offers the potential to address multiple, major unmet problems in the diagnosis, treatment and symptom management of a large variety of diseases and conditions, including cancer. Nanotechnology can engender transformational progress in crucial aspects of the fight against cancer, spanning the continuum that ranges from prevention, to early detection, screening and monitoring, to innovative diagnostics and therapeutic modalities in the era of patient-centered, molecular medicine. Specifically, the authors will discuss their current research in the field of biomedical nanotechnology and its application to the management of breakthrough cancer pain.

The methodologic quality of clinical trials on regional anesthesia for cataract surgery

OBJECTIVE

To assess the methodologic quality of published randomized trials of regional anesthesia management strategies for cataract surgery.

DESIGN

Literature review and analysis.

METHOD

We performed a systematic search of the literature to identify all articles pertaining to regional anesthesia for cataract surgery on adults. Overall quality scores and scores for individual methodologic domains were based on the evaluations of two investigators experienced in methodologic research who independently reviewed all relevant articles using a quality abstraction form.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Study quality in each of five domains: representativeness, bias and confounding, intervention description, outcomes and follow-up, and statistical quality and interpretation.

RESULTS

Eighty-two randomized clinical trials were identified with a mean overall quality score of 44%. The mean domain scores ranged from 37% for representativeness to 58% for outcomes and follow-up. Forty percent or fewer studies received the maximum score for reporting the setting, the population, and the start and end dates; describing the inclusion and exclusion criteria; adequately randomizing subjects; and adequately masking individuals participating in the study. Key outcomes were often inadequately reported, including the distribution of patient-reported pain scores and the mean surgical time.

CONCLUSIONS

Greater attention to methodologic quality and detailed reporting of study results will improve the ability of readers to interpret the results of clinical trials assessing regional anesthesia for cataract surgery.

Synthesis of the literature on the effectiveness of regional anesthesia for cataract surgery

OBJECTIVE

To synthesize the findings of the randomized trials of regional anesthesia management strategies for cataract surgery.

DESIGN

Literature review and analysis.

METHOD

The authors performed a systematic search of the literature to identify all articles pertaining to regional anesthesia during cataract surgery on adults. One investigator abstracted the content of each article onto a custom-designed form. A second investigator corroborated the findings. The evidence supporting the anesthesia approaches was graded by consensus as good, fair, poor, or insufficient.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Evidence supporting the effectiveness of different forms of regional anesthesia.

RESULTS

There was good evidence that retrobulbar and peribulbar blocks provide equivalent akinesia and pain control during cataract surgery. Additionally, sub-Tenon's blocks were at least as effective as retrobulbar and peribulbar blocks. There was good evidence that retrobulbar block provides better pain control during surgery than topical anesthesia, and there was fair evidence that peribulbar block provides better pain control than topical anesthesia.

CONCLUSIONS

This synthesis of the literature demonstrates that currently used approaches to anesthesia management provide adequate pain control for successful cataract surgery, but there is some variation in the effectiveness of the most commonly used techniques. Data are needed on patient preferences to determine the optimal strategies for anesthesia management during cataract surgery.