How opioid prescribing policies influence primary care clinicians’ treatment decisions and conversations with patients with chronic pain

Objective: The 2016 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guideline for prescribing opioids for chronic pain aimed to assist primary care clinicians in safely and effectively prescribing opioids for chronic noncancer pain. Individual states, payers, and health systems issued similar policies imposing various regulations around opioid prescribing for patients with chronic pain. Experts argued that healthcare organizations and clinicians may be misapplying the federal guideline and subsequent opioid prescribing policies, leading to an inadequate pain management. The objective of this study was to understand how primary care clinicians involve opioid prescribing policies in their treatment decisions and in their conversations with patients with chronic pain.Design: We conducted a secondary qualitative analysis of data from 64 unique primary care visits and 87 post-visit interviews across 20 clinicians from three healthcare systems in the Midwestern United States. Using a multistep process and thematic analysis, we systematically analyzed data excerpts addressing opioid prescribing policies.Results: Opioid prescribing policies influenced clinicians’ treatment decisions to not initiate opioids, prescribe fewer opioids overall (theme #1), and begin tapering and discontinuation of opioids (theme #2) for most patients with chronic pain. Clinical precautions, described in the opioid prescribing policies to monitor use, were directly invoked during visits for patients with chronic pain (theme #3).Conclusions: Opioid prescribing policies have multidimensional influence on clinician treatment decisions for patients with chronic pain. Our findings may inform future studies to explore mechanisms for aligning pressures around opioid prescribing, stemming from various opioid prescribing policies, with the need to deliver individualized pain care.

Pain measurement in the older people: evaluation of the psychometric properties of the Geriatric Pain Measure (GPM-24) – polish version

Background Chronic pain in older people is of particular importance not only with regard to negative subjective experience but also as an indicator of the quality of medical care. Brief scales to assess pain may help health professionals with early recognition and treatment to avoid patient suffering. However, these scales should be adapted to the cultural context to provide valid assessments. The aim of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Polish translation of the Geriatric Pain Measure – 24 (GPM-24) in older people. Methods The study was conducted among 181 people aged 65 and over with chronic (noncancer) pain of varying intensity lasting more than 6 months. Construct validity was assessed using the principal component analysis (PCA) method with oblimin rotation. Criterion validity was evaluated by correlating the scores of the GPM-24 with the scores of the McGill-Melzack questionnaire (MPQ). The reliability of the GPM-24 was estimated in terms of internal consistency using Cronbach’s alpha coefficients. Results The PCA revealed a 6- component structure of the set of items that constituted the GPM-24. Most of these components were defined by items included in the same subscale, similar to the result obtained by the original scale’s authors. There were significant correlations between the GPM-24 and some dimensions of MPQ: affective (rho = 0.25, p = 0.001), present pain intensity (rho = 0.44, p < 0.001), pain rating index total (rho = 0.31, p < 0.001), and number of words chosen (rho = 0.26, p < 0.001). The value of the standardized Cronbach’s alpha equalled 0.89 and thus confirmed the high reliability of the GPM-24. Conclusions The Geriatric Pain Measure − 24 is a reliable and valid tool that is recommended for the monitoring and multidimensional assessment of chronic pain in older people in daily practice as well as in clinical trials. Trial registration Statutory research “Chronic pain in people over 65 years of age” K/ZDS/005733, conducted in 2015–2018.

The effects of a multiday (10–14 days) subanesthetic dose IV ketamine infusion in the treatment of refractory chronic pain

Aim: Ketamine is an anesthetic agent that at lower doses can be a potent analgesic. There has been an interest in the use of low dose ketamine in treatment of chronic pain syndromes. Patients & methods: We report the results of a retrospective observational study for patients diagnosed with a chronic noncancer pain syndrome receiving a 2-week continuous subanesthetic IV ketamine infusion. Results & conclusion: We conclude that a 10–14 days of subanesthetic ketamine infusion in chronic patients results in clinically significant lowering of patients' numerical pain score. Further studies looking at subanesthetic ketamine infusion in a prospective trial of multi-day IV ketamine infusion in chronic refractory chronic neuropathic pain are needed to further assess the efficacy of ketamine.

Attrition of methylnaltrexone treatment-emergent adverse events in patients with chronic noncancer pain and opioid-induced constipation: a post hoc pooled analysis of two clinical trials

Background: Opioids prescribed for the management of chronic noncancer pain are associated with nausea, vomiting, and constipation. Methylnaltrexone, a peripherally acting µ-opioid receptor antagonist, has demonstrated robust efficacy and was well-tolerated in treating opioid-induced constipation without affecting central analgesia. Our objective was to assess changes in the frequency of adverse events after the first or second dose of methylnaltrexone or placebo. Methods: This post hoc analysis pooled data from two randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials assessing methylnaltrexone for opioid-induced constipation in the outpatient setting. Patients received subcutaneous methylnaltrexone (12 mg once daily or 12 mg once every other day), oral methylnaltrexone (150, 300, or 450 mg daily), or placebo. Adverse events, opioid withdrawal symptoms, pain intensity, and rescue-free bowel movements (RFBMs) within 4 hours of the first dose (i.e., RFBM responders) were assessed. Associations between adverse event frequencies and RFBM response were also evaluated. Results: The analysis included 1263 adult patients with chronic noncancer pain. Treatment-emergent adverse event rates declined from treatment day 1 to 2 (methylnaltrexone: 16.2%–5.3%; placebo: 6.6%−5.4%). Among methylnaltrexone-treated patients, significantly greater proportions of RFBM responders versus nonresponders reported gastrointestinal adverse events on day 1. No associations between RFBM response and the frequency of adverse events were observed in the placebo group. No meaningful changes in opioid withdrawal symptoms or pain intensity were observed. Conclusions: Early-onset adverse events following methylnaltrexone treatment, particularly gastrointestinal adverse events, are at least partially due to laxation. Methylnaltrexone treatment effectively relieves opioid-induced constipation without affecting the central analgesic effects of opioids.

288What proportion of patients with chronic noncancer pain are prescribed an opioid medicine?

Background Guidelines now discourage opioid analgesics for chronic non-cancer pain because the benefits frequently do not outweigh the harms. This review determined the proportion of patients with chronic non-cancer pain who are prescribed an opioid, the types prescribed, and factors associated with prescribing. Methods Database searches were conducted from inception to 29th October 2018 without restrictions. We included observational studies of adults with chronic non-cancer pain measuring opioid prescribing. Opioids were categorised as weak (e.g. codeine) or strong (e.g. oxycodone). Risk of bias assessed study quality. Results were pooled using a random-effects model. Meta-regression investigated study-level factors associated with prescribing. The overall evidence quality was assessed using GRADE criteria. Results Of the 42 studies (5,059,098 participants) included, majority (n = 28) from the United States of America. Eleven studies were at low risk of bias. The pooled estimate of the proportion of patients with chronic non-cancer pain prescribed opioids was 30.7% (95%CI 28.7% to 32.7%, 42 studies, moderate-quality evidence). Strong opioids were more frequently prescribed than weak (18.4% (95%CI 16.0% to 21.0%, n = 15 studies, low-quality evidence), versus 8.5% (95%CI 7.2% to 9.9%, n = 15 studies, low-quality evidence)). Meta-regression determined opioid prescribing was associated with year of sampling (more prescribing in recent years) (p = 0.014) and not geographic region (p = 0.056). Conclusions Opioid prescribing for patients with chronic non-cancer pain is common and has increased over time. Key message Opioid prescribing for patients with chronic non-cancer pain and has increased over time. This review is the first systematic review to synthesized such data.