Opioid Prescription Patterns and Risk Factors Associated With Opioid Use in the Netherlands

Pain rehabilitation's dual power: Treatment for chronic pain and prevention of opioid-related risks

The purpose of this article is to provide a data-driven exploration of an interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation program (PRP) as a viable option for addressing the dual crises of chronic pain and opioid use. Psychologists are crucial providers in the PRP, in both intervention and leadership roles. There is well-established literature supporting pain rehabilitation as an effective treatment for chronic pain and functioning, but there are few studies examining the effects of pain rehabilitation on opioid misuse risk. We evaluated data from 60 patients with diverse chronic pain conditions who completed an interdisciplinary PRP to evaluate changes in pain, functioning (self-report and objective physical measure), psychological symptoms, and health-related quality of life. To evaluate the effect of pain rehabilitation on opioid-related risks, we examined opioid use and opioid misuse behaviors (measured by the Current Opioid Misuse Measure; COMM) pre- and posttreatment. Results demonstrated statistically significant improvements in all outcomes, with medium effect sizes for pain severity and large effect sizes for functioning, psychological symptoms, and emotional quality of life. Fifty-eight percent of patients were on opioid medications at entry compared with 15% at discharge. Among patients who entered on opioids, mean COMM scores were significantly reduced from above the cutoff for misuse risk (M = 13.57) to below the cutoff (M = 5.86). Overall, this study provided strong support for pain rehabilitation as an effective treatment for chronic pain and related suffering, while also providing a prevention-based opportunity for reducing opioid-related risk. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Opioid Pain Medication Prescription for Chronic Pain in Primary Care Centers: The Roles of Pain Acceptance, Pain Intensity, Depressive Symptoms, Pain Catastrophizing, Sex, and Age

Background: Psychological factors of patients may influence physicians’ decisions on prescribing opioid analgesics. However, few studies have sought to identify these factors. The present study had a double objective: (1) To identify the individual factors that differentiate patients who had been prescribed opioids for the management of chronic back pain from those who had not been prescribed opioids and (2) to determine which factors make significant and independent contributions to the prediction of opioid prescribing. Methods: A total of 675 patients from four primary care centers were included in the sample. Variables included sex, age, pain intensity, depressive symptoms, pain catastrophizing, and pain acceptance. Results: Although no differences were found between men and women, participants with chronic noncancer pain who were prescribed opioids were older, reported higher levels of pain intensity and depressive symptoms, and reported lower levels of pain-acceptance. An independent association was found between pain intensity and depressive symptoms and opioid prescribing. Conclusions: The findings suggest that patient factors influence physicians’ decisions on prescribing opioids. It may be useful for primary care physicians to be aware of the potential of these factors to bias their treatment decisions.

Benefit and Risk Evaluation of Biased μ-Receptor Agonist Oliceridine versus Morphine

BACKGROUND

To improve understanding of the respiratory behavior of oliceridine, a μ-opioid receptor agonist that selectively engages the G-protein-coupled signaling pathway with reduced activation of the β-arrestin pathway, the authors compared its utility function with that of morphine. It was hypothesized that at equianalgesia, oliceridine will produce less respiratory depression than morphine and that this is reflected in a superior utility.

METHODS

Data from a previous trial that compared the respiratory and analgesic effects of oliceridine and morphine in healthy male volunteers (n = 30) were reanalyzed. A population pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic analysis was performed and served as basis for construction of utility functions, which are objective functions of probability of analgesia, P(analgesia), and probability of respiratory depression, P(respiratory depression). The utility function = P(analgesia ≥ 0.5) - P(respiratory depression ≥ 0.25), where analgesia ≥ 0.5 is the increase in hand withdrawal latency in the cold pressor test by at least 50%, and respiratory depression ≥ 0.25 is the decrease of the hypercapnic ventilatory response by at least 25%. Values are median ± standard error of the estimate.

RESULTS

The two drugs were equianalgesic with similar potency values (oliceridine: 27.9 ± 4.9 ng/ml; morphine 34.3 ± 9.7 ng/ml; potency ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.56). A 50% reduction of the hypercapnic ventilatory response by morphine occurred at an effect-site concentration of 33.7 ± 4.8 ng/ml, while a 25% reduction by oliceridine occurred at 27.4 ± 3.5 ng/ml (potency ratio, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.65 to 3.72; P < 0.01). Over the clinically relevant concentration range of 0 to 35 ng/ml, the oliceridine utility function was positive, indicating that the probability of analgesia exceeds the probability of respiratory depression. In contrast, the morphine function was negative, indicative of a greater probability of respiratory depression than analgesia.

CONCLUSIONS

These data indicate a favorable oliceridine safety profile over morphine when considering analgesia and respiratory depression over the clinical concentration range.