CASE STUDY ON PAIN AND SUICIDE: A DISCUSSION OF CHRONIC NONCANCER PAIN MANAGEMENT

Author(s):  
Alice Chen ◽  
Elizabeth J. Narcessian
2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 559-566
Author(s):  
Natalia P. Arizmendez ◽  
Fabiana Kotovicz ◽  
Jessica J. F. Kram ◽  
Dennis J. Baumgardner

2009 ◽  
Vol 49 (5) ◽  
pp. e102-e109
Author(s):  
Emily Weidman-Evans ◽  
Tibb F. Jacobs ◽  
Philip Isherwood ◽  
Jeffery D. Evans ◽  
Tara Jenkins

2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (5) ◽  
pp. 558-567 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brandi L. Bowers ◽  
Andrew J. Crannage

Nationally, the prescription of opioids for acute and chronic pain is increasing. As opioid use continues to expand and become of increased concern for health-care practitioners, so do the adverse effects and long-term management of those effects. Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) presents a unique challenge because tolerance does not develop to this particular adverse effect, making chronic pain management a delicate balance between relieving pain and preventing long-term adverse effects such as constipation and dependence. Several agents have been developed for the treatment of OIC in patients with chronic noncancer pain on the basis of short-term studies of 12 weeks or less. However, chronic pain management often extends beyond this 12-week boundary, resulting in health-care professionals questioning the safety and efficacy of continued treatment with OIC agents. This review evaluates available literature on long-term treatment of OIC in patients with chronic noncancer pain with lubiprostone, naloxegol, and methylnaltrexone as well as preliminary results of the recently completed naldemedine long-term trial, COMPOSE-3.


2014 ◽  
Vol 127 (1) ◽  
pp. 22-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ethem Kavukcu ◽  
Melahat Akdeniz ◽  
Hasan Huseyin Avci ◽  
Mehmet Altuğ ◽  
Mehmet Öner

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (22;6) ◽  
pp. 549-554 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ferdinand Iannaccone

Background: Pain physicians have long been seen as subspecialists that commonly prescribe opioid medications, but the reality exists that primary care, oncologists, and surgical subspecialists find themselves embroiled in these clinical decisions just as frequently. It is a reasonable hope that pain physicians emerge as leaders in navigating these muddy waters, and the most important time to engrave practice standards is during clinical training. Objectives: It was our hope to survey Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) pain fellowship programs throughout the United States in regard to practice behaviors for opioid prescribing in chronic noncancer pain (CNCP), and to assess what future pain physicians are learning during their training. Study Design: We developed a succinct, 8-question survey that attempted to gauge several aspects of opioid prescribing practices for CNCP. A survey was prepared in electronic format and e-mailed to each program director or chair of every ACGME accredited pain program in the United States. Methods: Our results were anonymously collected and percentage of response to each question was presented in bar graph format. The survey was prepared and initially sent out in November 2017 and intermittently redistributed through April 2018. Results: Of the 117 surveys sent through Survey Monkey, 42 responses were returned and collected, 39 fully completed surveys, and 3 partial completions, an estimate of roughly one-third of US ACGME pain fellowship programs. Limitations: Completion of our survey was voluntary, roughly 35% of ACGME programs submitted a response. Conclusions: Data displayed in collected responses illustrate that although there is variance in opioid prescribing practices for CNCP, many programs are limiting what they use opioids for and have substantial nonopioid pharmacologic and or interventional aspects to their practice. Future pain physicians throughout the country are learning diverse methods of pain management, with opioids being only a part of their toolbox. Key words: Opioids, ACGME, pain management fellowship, guidelines, teaching


2010 ◽  
Vol 2;13 (1;2) ◽  
pp. 187-194 ◽  
Author(s):  
John W. Gilbert

Background: Because the symptoms of drug misuse are nonspecific and difficult to detect, pain physicians have relied heavily on the results of urine drug tests to diagnose and treat chronic noncancer pain in patients who are prescribed controlled substances. However, changes in Medicare local carrier determinations for Medicare Part B providers in Connecticut, Indiana, Kentucky, and New York went into effect on July 1, 2009, whereby qualitative drug screening was no longer recognized as medically reasonable and necessary in the treatment of patients with chronic noncancer pain unless the patient presents with suspected drug overdose. Study Design: A retrospective review of urine drug testing services. Objective: To determine the extent of urine drug testing in patients with chronic noncancer pain in a large, Kentucky neuroscience practice offering pain management services combined with neurologic and neurosurgical services to better understand the potential effects of recent changes to Medicare benefits. Methods: An audit of services provided during 2007 was conducted using computer software. Outcome Measures: Outcome measures included the number of practice services, number of urine drug tests by payor, and the number of noncompliant patients by payor who self-released from care. Results: Urine drug tests represented approximately 18.2% of professional medical services rendered in 2007 to patients with a diagnosis of chronic noncancer pain. Of these, UDTs represented approximately 22.2% of services provided to Medicare patients and 24.6% of services provided to Medicaid patients. In 2007, 2,081 patients with noncompliant UDTs self released from the practice against medical advice. Of these, 23.1% were enrolled in Medicare and 47.5% were enrolled in Medicaid. Approximately 40% of patients were referred to the CARE Clinic on the basis of noncompliance as indicated by UDT and/ or behavioral health issues. Of these, approximately 50% remained in treatment. Urine drug tests were also instrumental in revealing that 19.6% of patients showed signs of drug abuse or addiction. Of these patients, approximately 60% were government insured. Limitations: Not a prospective, double-blinded study. We approximated the proportion of patients potentially affected by drug abuse or addiction as the percentage of patients self releasing from medical care. Conclusion: In 2007, UDTs were used as an effective tool in adherence monitoring in a private neuroscience practice in Kentucky that offers pain management services combined with neurologic and neurosurgical services. UDTs were instrumental in referring 40% of patients for evaluation and treatment by behavioral health and addiction medicine specialists. UDTs were also instrumental in discovering signs of drug abuse or addiction in 19.6% of patients. Of these patients, approximately 60% were government insured. Should the objective and reliable sign offered by UDTs be eliminated from the physician’s toolbox, the physician’s ability to accurately diagnose and treat these patients could be impaired. Key words: Chronic noncancer pain, Medicare, Medicaid, urine drug testing, opioids, drug abuse


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document