scholarly journals American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) Guidelines for Responsible Opioid Prescribing in Chronic Non-Cancer Pain: Part 2 - Guidance

2012 ◽  
Vol 3S;15 (3S;7) ◽  
pp. S67-S116
Author(s):  
ASIPP ASIPP

Results: Part 2 of the guidelines on responsible opioid prescribing provides the following recommendations for initiating and maintaining chronic opioid therapy of 90 days or longer. 1. A) Comprehensive assessment and documentation is recommended before initiating opioid therapy, including documentation of comprehensive history, general medical condition, psychosocial history, psychiatric status, and substance use history. (Evidence: good) B) Despite limited evidence for reliability and accuracy, screening for opioid use is recommended, as it will identify opioid abusers and reduce opioid abuse. (Evidence: limited) C) Prescription monitoring programs must be implemented, as they provide data on patterns of prescription usage, reduce prescription drug abuse or doctor shopping. (Evidence: good to fair) D) Urine drug testing (UDT) must be implemented from initiation along with subsequent adherence monitoring to decrease prescription drug abuse or illicit drug use when patients are in chronic pain management therapy. (Evidence: good) 2. A) Establish appropriate physical diagnosis and psychological diagnosis if available prior to initiating opioid therapy. (Evidence: good) B) Caution must be exercised in ordering various imaging and other evaluations, interpretation and communication with the patient; to avoid increased fear, activity restriction, requests for increased opioids, and maladaptive behaviors. (Evidence: good) C) Stratify patients into one of the 3 risk categories – low, medium, or high risk. D) A pain management consultation, may assist non-pain physicians, if high-dose opioid therapy is utilized. (Evidence: fair) 3. Essential to establish medical necessity prior to initiation or maintenance of opioid therapy. (Evidence: good) 4. Establish treatment goals of opioid therapy with regard to pain relief and improvement in function. (Evidence: good) 5. A) Long-acting opioids in high doses are recommended only in specific circumstances with severe intractable pain that is not amenable to short-acting or moderate doses of long-acting opioids, as there is no significant difference between long-acting and short-acting opioids for their effectiveness or adverse effects. (Evidence: fair) B) The relative and absolute contraindications to opioid use in chronic non-cancer pain must be evaluated including respiratory instability, acute psychiatric instability, uncontrolled suicide risk, active or history of alcohol or substance abuse, confirmed allergy to opioid agents, coadministration of drugs capable of inducing life-limiting drug interaction, concomitant use of benzodiazepines, active diversion of controlled substances, and concomitant use of heavy doses of central nervous system depressants. (Evidence: fair to limited) 6. A robust agreement which is followed by all parties is essential in initiating and maintaining opioid therapy as such agreements reduce overuse, misuse, abuse, and diversion. (Evidence: fair) 7. A) Once medical necessity is established, opioid therapy may be initiated with low doses and short-acting drugs with appropriate monitoring to provide effective relief and avoid side effects. (Evidence: fair for short-term effectiveness, limited for long-term effectiveness) B) Up to 40 mg of morphine equivalent is considered as low dose, 41 to 90 mg of morphine equivalent as a moderate dose, and greater than 91 mg of morphine equivalence as high dose. (Evidence: fair) C) In reference to long-acting opioids, titration must be carried out with caution and overdose and misuse must be avoided. (Evidence: good) 8. A) Methadone is recommended for use in late stages after failure of other opioid therapy and only by clinicians with specific training in the risks and uses. (Evidence: limited) B) Monitoring recommendation for methadone prescription is that an electrocardiogram should be obtained prior to initiation, at 30 days and yearly thereafter. (Evidence: fair) 9. In order to reduce prescription drug abuse and doctor shopping, adherence monitoring by UDT and PMDPs provide evidence that is essential to the identification of those patients who are non-compliant or abusing prescription drugs or illicit drugs. (Evidence: fair) 10. Constipation must be closely monitored and a bowel regimen be initiated as soon as deemed necessary. (Evidence: good) 11. Chronic opioid therapy may be continued, with continuous adherence monitoring, in well-selected populations, in conjunction with or after failure of other modalities of treatments with improvement in physical and functional status and minimal adverse effects. (Evidence: fair) Disclaimer: The guidelines are based on the best available evidence and do not constitute inflexible treatment recommendations. Due to the changing body of evidence, this document is not intended to be a “standard of care.” Key words: Chronic pain, persistent pain, non-cancer pain, controlled substances, substance abuse, prescription drug abuse, dependency, opioids, prescription monitoring, drug testing, adherence monitoring, diversion

2012 ◽  
Vol 3S;15 (3S;7) ◽  
pp. S1-S66
Author(s):  
ASIPP ASIPP

Background: Opioid abuse has continued to increase at an alarming rate since the 1990s. As documented by different medical specialties, medical boards, advocacy groups, and the Drug Enforcement Administration, available evidence suggests a wide variance in chronic opioid therapy of 90 days or longer in chronic non-cancer pain. Part 1 describes evidence assessment. Objectives: The objectives of opioid guidelines as issued by the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) are to provide guidance for the use of opioids for the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain, to produce consistency in the application of an opioid philosophy among the many diverse groups involved, to improve the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain, and to reduce the incidence of abuse and drug diversion. The focus of these guidelines is to curtail the abuse of opioids without jeopardizing non-cancer pain management with opioids. Results: 1) There is good evidence that non-medical use of opioids is extensive; one-third of chronic pain patients may not use prescribed opioids as prescribed or may abuse them, and illicit drug use is significantly higher in these patients. 2) There is good evidence that opioid prescriptions are increasing rapidly, as the majority of prescriptions are from non-pain physicians, many patients are on long-acting opioids, and many patients are provided with combinations of long-acting and short-acting opioids. 3) There is good evidence that the increased supply of opioids, use of high dose opioids, doctor shoppers, and patients with multiple comorbid factors contribute to the majority of the fatalities. 4) There is fair evidence that long-acting opioids and a combination of long-acting and shortacting opioids contribute to increasing fatalities and that even low-doses of 40 mg or 50 mg of daily morphine equivalent doses may be responsible for emergency room admissions with overdoses and deaths. 5) There is good evidence that approximately 60% of fatalities originate from opioids prescribed within the guidelines, with approximately 40% of fatalities occurring in 10% of drug abusers. 6) The short-term effectiveness of opioids is fair, whereas the long-term effectiveness of opioids is limited due to a lack of long-term (> 3 months) high quality studies, with fair evidence with no significant difference between long-acting and short-acting opioids. 7) Among the individual drugs, most opioids have fair evidence for short-term and limited evidence for long-term due to a lack of quality studies. 8) The evidence for the effectiveness and safety of chronic opioid therapy in the elderly for chronic non-cancer pain is fair for short-term and limited for long-term due to lack of high quality studies; limited in children and adolescents and patients with comorbid psychological disorders due to lack of quality studies; and the evidence is poor in pregnant women. 9) There is limited evidence for reliability and accuracy of screening tests for opioid abuse due to lack of high quality studies. 10) There is fair evidence to support the identification of patients who are non-compliant or abusing prescription drugs or illicit drugs through urine drug testing and prescription drug monitoring programs, both of which can reduce prescription drug abuse or doctor shopping. Disclaimer: The guidelines are based on the best available evidence and do not constitute inflexible treatment recommendations. Due to the changing body of evidence, this document is not intended to be a “standard of care.” Key words: Chronic pain, persistent pain, non-cancer pain, controlled substances, substance abuse, prescription drug abuse, dependency, opioids, prescription monitoring, drug testing, adherence monitoring, diversion


2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sanford M Silverman

Prescription drug abuse is the fastest growing problem in the United States. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), enough opioid pain relievers were sold in 2010 to provide every adult in the United States with the equivalent of a typical dose of 5 mg of hydrocodone every 4 hours for 1 month. Many solutions have been proposed to address this problem, including treatment guidelines, political solutions (statutory changes), Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS), and technological innovations. Many opioid products are manipulated (crushed, snorted, injected, etc.) to facilitate abuse. Since extended-release/long-acting (ER/LA) opioids contain a large amount of opioid contained in a single delivery system, they are a favorite target of abusers. In short, the goal of an abuser is to convert an ER/LA opioid into an immediate-release one. Abuse-deterrent formulations (ADFs) are intended to make manipulation more difficult or to make abuse of the manipulated product less attractive or less rewarding. One such technological solution is the development of ADFs for opioid pain medications. The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) guidelines for industry released in 2015 establish the rationale and methodology for the development of ER/LA opioids that contain abuse-deterrent properties. The goal is to deter abuse, realizing that it is impossible to prevent abuse. Key words: abuse-deterrent formulations, abuse-deterrent opioids, CDC guidelines, FDA opioid guidelines, opioid abuse, opioid deaths, opioid diversion, opioid overdose, prescription drug abuse, REMS 


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Shupp ◽  
Scott Loveridge ◽  
Mark Skidmore ◽  
Brandn Green ◽  
Don Albrecht

Abstract Background: Prescription drug abuse (PDA) disorders continue to contribute to the current American opioid crisis. Within this context, our study seeks to improve understanding about stigma associated with, and symptom recognition of, prescription drug abuse. Aims: Model the stigma and symptom recognition of PDA in the general population. Methods: A randomized, nation-wide, online, vignette-focused survey of the general public (N = 631) was implemented with an oversample for rural counties. Logit estimation was used for analysis, with regional and county-level sociodemographic variables as controls. Results: Individual respondents that self-identify as having or having had “a prescription drug abuse issue” were less likely to correctly identify the condition and were 4 times more likely to exhibit stigma. Male respondents were approximately half as likely to correctly identify PDA as female respondents while older respondents (55+) were more likely to correctly identify PDA, relative to those aged 35-54. Being both male and younger was associated with slightly more stigma, in that they were less likely to disagree with the stigma statement. Conclusions: In light of the continued risks that individuals with PDA behaviors face in potentially transitioning to illicit opioid use, the findings of this survey suggested a continued need for public education and outreach. Of particular note is the perspective of those who have self-identified with the condition, as this population faces the largest risks of adverse health outcomes from illicit drug use within the survey respondents.


Author(s):  
Bhushan R Deshpande ◽  
Ellen P McCarthy ◽  
Yoojin Jung ◽  
Timothy S Anderson ◽  
Shoshana J Herzig

Guidelines recommend against initiating long-acting opioids during acute hospitalization, owing to higher risk of overdose and morbidity compared to short-acting opioid initiation. We investigated the incidence of long-acting opioid initiation following hospitalization in a retrospective cohort of Medicare beneficiaries with an acute care hospitalization in 2016 who were ≥65 years old, did not have cancer or hospice care, and had not filled an opioid prescription within the preceding 90 days. Among 258,193 hospitalizations, 47,945 (18.6%) were associated with a claim for a new opioid prescription in the week after hospital discharge: 817 (0.3%) with both short- and long-acting opioids, 125 (0.1%) with long-acting opioids only, and 47,003 (18.2%) with short-acting opioids only. Most long-acting opioid claims occurred in surgical patients (770 out of 942; 81.7%). Compared with beneficiaries prescribed short-acting opioids only, beneficiaries prescribed long-acting opioids were younger, had a higher prevalence of diseases of the musculoskeletal system and connective tissue, and had more known risk factors for opioid-related adverse events, including anxiety disorders, opioid use disorder, prior long-term high-dose opioid use, and benzodiazepine co-prescription. These findings may help target quality-improvement initiatives.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Shupp ◽  
Scott Loveridge ◽  
Mark Skidmore ◽  
Brandn Green ◽  
Don Albrecht

Abstract Background: Prescription drug abuse (PDA) disorders continue to contribute to the current American opioid crisis. Within this context, our study seeks to improve understanding about stigma associated with, and symptom recognition of, prescription drug abuse. Aims: Model the stigma and symptom recognition of PDA in the general population.Methods: A randomized, nation-wide, online, vignette-focused survey of the general public (N = 631) was implemented with an oversample for rural counties. Logit estimation was used for analysis, with regional and county-level sociodemographic variables as controls. Results: Individual respondents that self-identify as having or having had “a prescription drug abuse issue” were less likely to correctly identify the condition and were 4 times more likely to exhibit stigma. Males were approximately half as likely to correctly identify PDA as females while older (55+) were more likely to correctly identify PDA, relative to those aged 35-54. Being both male and younger was associated with slightly more stigma, in that they were less likely to disagree with the stigma statement. Conclusions: In light of the continued risks that individuals with PDA behaviors face in potentially transitioning to illicit opioid use, the findings of this survey suggested a continued need for public education and outreach. Of particular note is the perspective of those who have self-identified with the condition, as this population faces the largest risks of adverse health outcomes from illicit drug use within the survey respondents.


2009 ◽  
Vol 1;12 (1;1) ◽  
pp. 259-267
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti

Background: Opioid use in the management of chronic pain is widespread in chronic pain settings. Opioid prescriptions for non-cancer pain and overall opioid sales have been soaring with the increasing nonmedical use of opioids in the United States. Prolonged use of high dose opioids has been associated with adverse consequences including tolerance, abuse, addiction, hyperalgesia, hormonal effects, and immunosuppression. Studies of high dose therapy have shown pain relief with a 30% decrease in the intensity of pain and that only 44% of the patients continue the treatment between 7 and 24 months. However, there is no data available on the prevalence of side effects associated with low or moderate dose opioid use in chronic non-cancer pain when administered in conjunction with interventional techniques. Objective: To evaluate the prevalence of side effects, of low or moderate dose opioid therapy with or without benzodiazepines, antidepressants, and their combinations. Methods: The evaluation was conducted by interviewing 1,000 patients on stable doses of opioids, with or without benzodiazepines, antidepressants, and their combinations. Patients were categorized into 4 groups with Group 1 receiving opioids only (n = 143), Group 2 receiving opioids and benzodiazepines (n = 159), Group 3 receiving opioids and antidepressants (n = 113), and Group 4 received opioids, benzodiazepines, and antidepressants (n = 118). Results: Inclusion criteria was met in 533 patients receiving opioid therapy for longer than 6 months. The incidence of side effects in Group 1 was 18%, in Group 2 was 8%, in Group 3 was 17%, and in Group 4 was 14%. The most frequent complications were in patients receiving methadone (52%) followed by oxycodone (41%) and morphine (36%). Patients receiving hydrocodone had the least incidences of side effects with 7.5%. There were no significant differences noted based on the duration of therapy, age of the patient, and gender. Severe side effects accounted for only 14 of 137 instances. Limitations: Limitations of this study include the inability to incorporate multiple other drugs due to complicated nature with multiple groups and data collection and analysis. The other limitation is that the proportion of patients receiving methadone, oxycodone, morphine, and propoxyphene was low compared to hydrocodone with 77% of the patients. Conclusion: Moderate or low dose opioid therapy in conjunction with or without benzodiazepines, antidepressants, or in combinations are associated with minor side effects. Key words: Opioids, benzodiazepines, antidepressants, chronic non-cancer pain, abuse, side effects


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document