scholarly journals Mindfulness-Oriented Recovery Enhancement remediates anhedonia in chronic opioid use by enhancing neurophysiological responses during savoring of natural rewards

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Eric L. Garland ◽  
Spencer T. Fix ◽  
Justin P. Hudak ◽  
Edward M. Bernat ◽  
Yoshio Nakamura ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Neuropsychopharmacologic effects of long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) in the context of chronic pain may result in subjective anhedonia coupled with decreased attention to natural rewards. Yet, there are no known efficacious treatments for anhedonia and reward deficits associated with chronic opioid use. Mindfulness-Oriented Recovery Enhancement (MORE), a novel behavioral intervention combining training in mindfulness with savoring of natural rewards, may hold promise for treating anhedonia in LTOT. Methods Veterans receiving LTOT (N = 63) for chronic pain were randomized to 8 weeks of MORE or a supportive group (SG) psychotherapy control. Before and after the 8-week treatment groups, we assessed the effects of MORE on the late positive potential (LPP) of the electroencephalogram and skin conductance level (SCL) during viewing and up-regulating responses (i.e. savoring) to natural reward cues. We then examined whether these neurophysiological effects were associated with reductions in subjective anhedonia by 4-month follow-up. Results Patients treated with MORE demonstrated significantly increased LPP and SCL to natural reward cues and greater decreases in subjective anhedonia relative to those in the SG. The effect of MORE on reducing anhedonia was statistically mediated by increases in LPP response during savoring. Conclusions MORE enhances motivated attention to natural reward cues among chronic pain patients on LTOT, as evidenced by increased electrocortical and sympathetic nervous system responses. Given neurophysiological evidence of clinical target engagement, MORE may be an efficacious treatment for anhedonia among chronic opioid users, people with chronic pain, and those at risk for opioid use disorder.

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (5) ◽  
pp. 386-391
Author(s):  
Robert Andrew Gardner ◽  
Kori L Brewer ◽  
Dennis B Langston

BackgroundEmergency department (ED) patients with chronic pain challenge providers to make quick and accurate assessments without an in-depth pain management consultation. Emergency physicians need reliable means to determine which patients may receive opioid therapy without exacerbating opioid use disorder (OUD).MethodsEighty-nine ED patients with a chief complaint of chronic pain were enrolled. Researchers administered questionnaires and reviewed medical and state prescription monitoring database information. Participants were classified as either OUD or non-OUD. Statistical analysis included a bivariate analysis comparing differences between groups and multivariate logistic regression evaluating ORs.ResultsThe 45 participants categorised as OUD had a higher proportion of documented or reported psychiatric diagnoses (p=0.049), preference of opioid treatment (p=0.005), current oxycodone prescription (p=0.043), borrowed pain medicine (p=0.004) and non-authorised dose increase (p<0.001). The state prescription monitoring database revealed the OUD group to have an increased number of opioid prescriptions (p=0.005) and pills (p=0.010). Participants who borrowed pain medicine and engaged in non-authorised dose increase were 5.2 (p=0.025, 95% CI 1.24 to 21.9) and 6.1 times (p=0.001, 95% CI 1.55 to 24.1) more likely to have OUD, respectively.LimitationsMajor limitations of our study include a small sample size, self-reported measures and convenience sample which may introduce selection bias.ConclusionPatients with chronic pain with OUD have distinguishable characteristics. Emergency physicians should consider such evidence-based variables prior to opioid therapy to ameliorate the opioid crisis and limit implicit bias.


Pain Medicine ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (11) ◽  
pp. 2166-2178 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dalila R Veiga ◽  
Liliane Mendonça ◽  
Rute Sampaio ◽  
José M Castro-Lopes ◽  
Luís F Azevedo

Abstract Objectives Opioid use in chronic pain has increased worldwide in recent years. The aims of this study were to describe the trends and patterns of opioid therapy over two years of follow-up in a cohort of chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) patients and to assess predictors of long-term opioid use and clinical outcomes. Methods A prospective cohort study with two years of follow-up was undertaken in four multidisciplinary chronic pain clinics. Demographic data, pain characteristics, and opioid prescriptions were recorded at baseline, three, six, 12, and 24 months. Results Six hundred seventy-four CNCP patients were recruited. The prevalence of opioid prescriptions at baseline was 59.6% (N = 402), and 13% (N = 86) were strong opioid prescriptions. At 24 months, opioid prescription prevalence was as high as 74.3% (N = 501), and strong opioid prescription was 31% (N = 207). Most opioid users (71%, N = 479) maintained their prescription during the two years of follow-up. Our opioid discontinuation was very low (1%, N = 5). Opioid users reported higher severity and interference pain scores, both at baseline and after two years of follow-up. Opioid use was independently associated with continuous pain, pain location in the lower limbs, and higher pain interference scores. Conclusions This study describes a pattern of increasing opioid prescription in chronic pain patients. Despite the limited improvement of clinical outcomes, most patients keep their long-term opioid prescriptions. Our results underscore the need for changes in clinical practice and further research into the effectiveness and safety of chronic opioid therapy for CNPC.


2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dokyoung S. You ◽  
Aram S. Mardian ◽  
Beth D. Darnall ◽  
Chwen-Yuen A. Chen ◽  
Korina De Bruyne ◽  
...  

Growing concerns about the safety of long-term opioid therapy and its uncertain efficacy for non-cancer pain have led to relatively rapid opioid deprescribing in chronic pain patients who have been taking opioid for years. To date, empirically supported processes for safe and effective opioid tapering are lacking. Opioid tapering programs have shown high rates of dropouts and increases in patient distress and suicidal ideation. Therefore, safe strategies for opioid deprescribing that are more likely to succeed are urgently needed. In response to this demand, the EMPOWER study has been launched to examine the effectiveness of behavioral medicine strategies within the context of patient-centered opioid tapering in outpatient settings (https://empower.stanford.edu/). The EMPOWER protocol requires an efficient process for ensuring that collaborative opioid tapering would be offered to the most appropriate patients while identifying patients who should be offered alternate treatment pathways. As a first step, clinicians need a screening tool to identify patients with Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) and to assess for OUD severity. Because such a tool is not available, the study team composed of eight chronic pain and/or addiction experts has extended a validated screening instrument to develop a brief and novel consensus screening tool to identify OUD and assess for OUD severity for treatment stratification. Our screening tool has the potential to assist busy outpatient clinicians to assess OUD among patients receiving long-term opioid therapy for chronic pain.


2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Slack ◽  
Danielle Brooks ◽  
Alice C Levine

Abstract Background: Hypogonadism and hypocortisolism are present in a sizeable proportion of chronic opioid users. (1) An association with hypothyroidism, however, has not been demonstrated. Clinical Case: A 56-year old woman with chronic pain syndrome on opioids presented from a nursing home with decreased level of consciousness and was found to be hypotensive requiring ICU admission. Several weeks prior to her presentation, she was hospitalized for progressive weakness and was found to have evidence of panhypopituitarism: low TSH (0.209 uIU/mL, nl 0.400 – 4.200), low free T4 (0.76 ng/dL, nl 0.80 – 1.50), low LH (&lt;0.12 mIU/mL, nl 10.9 – 58.6), low FSH (1.7 mIU/mL, nl 16.7 – 113.6), and abnormal ACTH stim test (ACTH 6.4 pg/mL, nl 7.2 – 63; cortisol 0-min 3.8 mcg/dL, nl 6.7 – 22.6; 60-min 13.10). She was discharged on levothyroxine 25 mcg daily and prednisone 7.5 mg daily. On admission, her exam was notable for symmetric, non-pitting edema of the lower extremities to the knees with peau d’orange appearance. Initial tests revealed profound hypothyroidism with low TSH (0.381 uIU/mL), low free T4 (0.60 ng/dL), undetectable total T4 (&lt;0.9 mcg/dL, nl 5 – 12.2), and undetectable free T3 (&lt;1.00 pg/mL, nl 2.5 – 3.9). Thyroglobulin and TPO antibodies were within normal limits. Thyroxine binding globulin was low (6 mcg/mL, nl 13 -39). Additional biochemical studies re-demonstrated panhypopituitarism with low LH (&lt;0.12 mIU/mL) and FSH (0.9 mIU/mL). Cortisol was elevated (73.2 mcg/dL) as she had received hydrocortisone. Despite fluid resuscitation and use of vasopressors, her hypotension persisted and she remained in critical condition. She was treated as a case of myxedema coma and started on full replacement dose thyroid hormone with 120 mcg IV levothyroxine daily and liothyronine 5 mcg every 8 hours. Over the next several days, the patient’s hemodynamics and mental status improved dramatically. A contrast-enhanced pituitary-protocoled MRI was notable for a moderately flattened sella (pituitary 3.5 mm in height) and absence of usual T1 bright signal in the posterior lobe. A work-up for causes of panhypopituitarism was mostly unremarkable: low IgG 4 (0.82, neg &lt;1.50), indeterminate quant gold, negative HIV, low serum iron (35 mcg/dL, nl 50 – 200). Urine toxicology was positive only for opioids, reflective of the patient’s chronic pain regimen consisting of MS-Contin 60 mg twice daily and methadone 10 mg twice daily. Conclusion: This case demonstrates the potential for chronic opioid use to suppress the hypothalamic-pituitary-thyroid axis and highlights the importance of maintaining an index of suspicion for hypothyroidism in this population. Reference: (1) de Vries, F., Bruin, M., Lobatto, DJ., Dekkers, OM., Schoones, JW., van Furth, WR., Pereira, AM., Karavitaki, N., Biermasz, NR., Najafabadi, AHZ. Opioids and their endocrine effects: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JCEM. 2019. Doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgz022


2021 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen E. Nadeau ◽  
Jeffrey K. Wu ◽  
Richard A. Lawhern

We conducted an analytic review of the clinical scientific literature bearing on the use of opioids for treatment of chronic non-cancer pain in the United States. There is substantial, albeit not definitive, scientific evidence of the effectiveness of opioids in treating pain and of high variability in opioid dose requirements and side effects. The estimated risk of death from opioid treatment involving doses above 100 MMED is ~0.25%/year. Multiple large studies refute the concept that short-term use of opioids to treat acute pain predisposes to development of opioid use disorder. The prevalence of opioid use disorder associated with prescription opioids is likely &lt;3%. Morbidity, mortality, and financial costs of inadequate treatment of the 18 million Americans with moderate to severe chronic pain are high. Because of the absence of comparative effectiveness studies, there are no scientific grounds for considering alternative non-pharmacologic treatments as an adequate substitute for opioid therapy but these treatments might serve to augment opioid therapy, thereby reducing dosage. There are reasons to question the ostensible risks of co-prescription of opioids and benzodiazepines. As the causes of the opioid crisis have come into focus, it has become clear that the crisis resides predominantly in the streets and that efforts to curtail it by constraining opioid treatment in the clinic are unlikely to succeed.


2018 ◽  
Vol 87 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-57
Author(s):  
Lily Robinson ◽  
Richard Yu ◽  
Salonee Patel

Chronic pain is a common condition that impacts quality of life and often precipitates the need for medical attention. Despite evidence that long-term opioid use provides limited relief, prescription opioid therapy remains a cornerstone in the medical management of chronic non-cancer pain. Presently, 13% of Canadians are prescribed opioids for pain management, and physicians play a crucial role in preventing the development of opioid use disorders. However, Canadian physicians lack knowledge of and comfort with evidence-based principles of opioid stewardship. In this article, we aim to highlight ongoing Canadian efforts to address physician discomfort and improve clinical practice. We focus on 2017 Canadian guidelines that provide clinicians with evidence-based recommendations for opioid use in chronic non-cancer pain management. In addition, we call attention to provincial efforts to implement physician accountability measures. In reviewing the existing literature, we uncovered inadequacies in pain management curricula within the Canadian undergraduate and continuing medical education (CME) systems. We consulted the educational practices of the European Pain Federation and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to make recommendations for improvement to current Canadian pain curricula. Based on our findings, we recommend that (1) Canadian medical institutions expand upon current core pain curricula, (2) pain management education be made compulsory, (3) academic detailing be emphasized as a means of CME, and (4) multidisciplinary non-medical management of chronic pain be featured more extensively.


Author(s):  
Devon K Check ◽  
Christopher D Bagett ◽  
KyungSu Kim ◽  
Andrew W Roberts ◽  
Megan C Roberts ◽  
...  

Abstract Background No population-based studies have examined chronic opioid use among cancer survivors who are diverse with respect to diagnosis, age group, and insurance status. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study using North Carolina (NC) cancer registry data linked with claims from public and private insurance (2006–2016). We included adults with non-metastatic cancer who had no prior chronic opioid use (N = 38,366). We used modified Poisson regression to assess the adjusted relative risk of chronic opioid use in survivorship (&gt;90-day continuous supply of opioids in the 13–24 months following diagnosis) associated with patient characteristics. Results Only 3.0% of cancer survivors in our cohort used opioids chronically in survivorship. Predictors included younger age (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 50–59 vs 60–69 = 1.23, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.05–1.43), baseline depression (aRR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.06–1.41) or substance use (aRR = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.15–1.78) and Medicaid (aRR vs Private = 1.93, 95% CI = 1.56–2.40). Survivors who used opioids intermittently (vs not at all) before diagnosis were twice as likely to use opioids chronically in early survivorship (aRR = 2.62, 95% CI = 2.28–3.02). Those who used opioids chronically (vs intermittently or not at all) during active treatment had a nearly 17-fold increased likelihood of chronic use in survivorship (aRR = 16.65, 95 CI = 14.30–19.40). Conclusions Younger and low-income survivors, those with baseline depression or substance use, and those who require chronic opioid therapy during treatment are at increased risk for chronic opioid use in survivorship. Our findings point to opportunities improve assessment of psychosocial histories and to engage patients in shared decision-making around long-term pain management, when chronic opioid therapy is required during treatment.


2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dennis P. Watson ◽  
James A. Swartz ◽  
Lisa Robison-Taylor ◽  
Mary Ellen Mackesy-Amiti ◽  
Kim Erwin ◽  
...  

Abstract Background A key strategy for mitigating the current opioid epidemic is expanded access to medications for treating opioid use disorder (MOUD). However, interventions developed to expand MOUD access have limited ability to engage opioid users at higher levels of overdose risk, such as those who inject opioids. This paper describes the study protocol for testing STAMINA (Syringe Service Telemedicine Access for Medication-assisted Intervention through NAvigation), an intervention that engages high-risk opioid users at community-based syringe service programs (SSP) and quickly links them to MOUD using a telemedicine platform. Methods This randomized control trial will be conducted at three SSP sites in Chicago. All participants will complete an initial assessment with a provider from a Federally Qualified Health Center who can prescribe or refer MOUD services as appropriate. The control arm will receive standard referral to treatment and the intervention arm will receive immediate telemedicine linkage to the provider and (depending on the type of MOUD prescribed) provided transportation to pick up their induction prescription (for buprenorphine or naltrexone) or attend their intake appointment (for methadone). We aim to recruit a total of 273 participants over two years to provide enough power to detect a difference in our primary outcome of MOUD treatment linkage. Secondary outcomes include treatment engagement, treatment retention, and non-MOUD opioid use. Data will be collected using structured interviews and saliva drug tests delivered at baseline, three months, and six months. Fixed and mixed effects generalized linear regression analyses and survival analysis will be conducted to compare the probabilities of a successful treatment linkage between the two arms, days retained in treatment, and post-baseline opioid and other drug use. Discussion If successful, STAMINA’s telemedicine approach will significantly reduce the amount of time between SSP clients’ initial indication of interest in the medication and treatment initiation. Facilitating this process will likely lead to stronger additional treatment- and recovery-oriented outcomes. This study is also timely given the need for more rigorous testing of telemedicine interventions in light of temporary regulatory changes that have occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov (Clinical Trials ID: NCT04575324 and Protocol Number: 1138–0420). Registered 29 September 2020. The study protocol is also registered on the Open Science Framework (DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/4853 M).


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. e045402
Author(s):  
Caroline King ◽  
Robert Arnold ◽  
Emily Dao ◽  
Jennifer Kapo ◽  
Jane Liebschutz ◽  
...  

IntroductionManagement of opioid misuse and opioid use disorder (OUD) among individuals with serious illness is an important yet understudied issue. Palliative care clinicians caring for individuals with serious illness, many of whom may live for months or years, describe a complex tension between weighing the benefits of opioids, which are considered a cornerstone of pain management in serious illness, and serious opioid-related harms like opioid misuse and OUD. And yet, little literature exists to inform the management of opioid misuse and OUDs among individuals with serious illness. Our objective is to provide evidence-based management guidance to clinicians caring for individuals with serious illness who develop opioid misuse or OUD.Methods and analysisWe chose a modified Delphi approach, which is appropriate when empirical evidence is lacking and expert input must be used to shape clinical guidance. We sought to recruit 60 clinicians with expertise in palliative care, addiction or both to participate in this study. We created seven patient cases that capture important management challenges in individuals with serious illness prescribed opioid therapy. We used ExpertLens, an online platform for conducting modified Delphi panels. Participants completed three rounds of data collection. In round 1, they rated and commented on the appropriateness of management choices for cases. In round 2, participants reviewed and discussed their own and other participants’ round 1 numerical responses and comments. In round 3 (currently ongoing), participants again reviewed rounds 1 and 2, and are allowed to change their final numerical responses. We used ExpertLens to automatically identify whether there is consensus, or disagreement, among responses in panels. Only round 3 responses will be used to assess final consensus and disagreement.Ethics and disseminationThis project received ethical approval from the University of Pittsburgh’s Institutional Review Board (study 19110301) and the RAND Institutional Research Board (study 2020-0142). Guidance from this work will be disseminated through national stakeholder networks to gain buy-in and endorsement. This study will also form the basis of an implementation toolkit for clinicians caring for individuals with serious illness who are at risk of opioid misuse or OUD.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document