Efficacy, Tolerability, and Dose-Dependent Effects of Opioid Analgesics for Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Guideline recommendations on the pharmacological management of non-specific low back pain in primary care - is there a need to change?

INTRODUCTION

Analgesic drugs are often prescribed to patients with non-specific low back pain (NSLBP). Recommendations for non-invasive pharmacological management of NSLBP from recent clinical practice guidelines were compared with each other and with the best available evidence on drug efficacy. Areas covered: Recommendations concerning opioids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), paracetamol, antidepressants, anticonvulsants and muscle relaxants from national primary care guidelines published within the last 3 years were included in this review. For each pharmacological treatment, the most recent systematic review was included as the best available evidence on drug efficacy and common adverse effects were summarized. Expert opinion: Although differences exist between guidelines, publications are universally moving away from pharmacotherapy due to the limited efficacy and the risk of adverse effects. NSAIDs have replaced paracetamol as the first choice analgesics for NSLBP in many guidelines. Opioids are generally considered to be a last resort, but opioid prescriptions have been increasing over recent years. Upcoming guideline updates should explicitly shift their focus from pain to function and from pharmacotherapy to non-pharmacological treatments; patient education is important to make sure NSLBP patients accept these changes. To improve the quality of NSLBP care, the evidence-practice gap should be closed through guideline implementation strategies.

The effectiveness of incidental physical activity interventions compared to other interventions in the management of people with low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effectiveness of incidental (non-structured) physical activity interventions for the management of people with low back pain (LBP).

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials.

SETTING

Eligible published trials from the earliest date available to November 2017.

PARTICIPANTS

People with non-specific LBP aged 18 years or over.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Pain, disability and physical activity-related outcomes.

RESULTS

Three trials were included (including a total of 422 participants). The quality of trials, assessed by PEDro scale, was high (7 out of 10). For pain, the pooled results did not show any significant effects between the incidental physical activity intervention and other interventions at any time point. For disability, incidental physical activity was not statistically more effective than other interventions at short-term; however, the pooled results favoured incidental physical activity at intermediate-term (weighted mean difference (WMD) = -6.05, 95%CI: -10.39 to -1.71) and long-term (WMD = -6.40 95%CI: -11.68 to -1.12) follow-ups among participants with chronic LBP. The overall quality of evidence was rated "moderate-quality" based on the GRADE system.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidental physical activity intervention provided improvement in disability in intermediate- and long-term for people with chronic LBP, although this improvement was small and may not be clinically significant.

A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Mindfulness Meditation, Cognitive Therapy, and Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy for Chronic Low Back Pain

Objective

This pilot trial compared the feasibility, tolerability, acceptability, and effects of group-delivered mindfulness meditation (MM), cognitive therapy (CT), and mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) for chronic low back pain (CLBP).

Setting

University of Queensland Psychology Clinic.

Subjects

Participants were N = 69 (intent-to-treat [ITT] sample) adults with CLBP.

Design

A pilot, assessor-blinded randomized controlled trial.

Methods

Participants were randomized to treatments. The primary outcome was pain interference; secondary outcomes were pain intensity, physical function, depression, and opioid medication use. The primary study end point was post-treatment; maintenance of gains was evaluated at three- and six-month follow-up.

Results

Ratings of acceptability, and ratios of dropout and attendance showed that MBCT was acceptable, feasible, and well tolerated, with similar results found across conditions. For the ITT sample, large improvements in post-treatment scores for pain interference, pain intensity, physical function, and depression were found (P < 0.001), with no significant between-group differences. Analysis of the follow-up data (N = 43), however, revealed that MBCT participants improved significantly more than MM participants on pain interference, physical function, and depression. The CT group improved more than MM in physical function. The MBCT and CT groups did not differ significantly on any measures.

Conclusions

This is the first study to examine MBCT for CLBP management. The findings show that MBCT is a feasible, tolerable, acceptable, and potentially efficacious treatment option for CLBP. Further, MBCT, and possibly CT, could have sustained benefits that exceed MM on some important CLBP outcomes. A future definitive randomized controlled trial is needed to evaluate these treatments and their differences.

The risk for problematic opioid use in chronic pain: What can we learn from studies of pain and reward?

Problematic prescription opioid use is cited as a primary contributor to the current 'opioid epidemic' in the United States, which is characterized by recent rapid increases in individuals seeking treatment for opioid dependence and staggering rates of opioid overdose deaths. Individuals with chronic pain are commonly prescribed opioids to treat pain, and by this mere exposure are at increased risk for the development of problematic opioid use. However, the factors contributing to variation in risk across patients have only recently begun to be unraveled. In the present review, we describe the recent and expanding literature on interactions between pain and reward system function in an effort to inform our understanding of risk for problematic opioid use in chronic pain. To that end, we describe the limited experimental evidence regarding opioid abuse liability under conditions of pain, and offer suggestions for how to advance a research agenda that better informs clinicians about the factors contributing to opioid addiction risk in patients with chronic pain. We raise mechanistic hypotheses by highlighting the primary conclusions of several recent reviews on the neurobiology of pain and reward, with an emphasis on describing dopamine deficits in chronic pain, the role of the reward system in mediating the affective and motivational components of pain, and the role of opponent reward/anti-reward processes in the perpetuation of pain states and the development of problematic opioid use behaviors. Finally, we also argue that positive affect-which is directly regulated by the mesolimbic reward system-is a key pain inhibitory factor that, when deficient, may increase risk for problematic opioid use, and present a model that integrates the potential contributions of pain, reward system function, and positive affect to problematic opioid use risk.

Opioids for Chronic Noncancer Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Harms and benefits of opioids for chronic noncancer pain remain unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of opioids for chronic noncancer pain.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION

The databases of CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, AMED, and PsycINFO were searched from inception to April 2018 for RCTs of opioids for chronic noncancer pain vs any nonopioid control.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Paired reviewers independently extracted data. The analyses used random-effects models and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation to rate the quality of the evidence.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcomes were pain intensity (score range, 0-10 cm on a visual analog scale for pain; lower is better and the minimally important difference [MID] is 1 cm), physical functioning (score range, 0-100 points on the 36-item Short Form physical component score [SF-36 PCS]; higher is better and the MID is 5 points), and incidence of vomiting.

RESULTS

Ninety-six RCTs including 26 169 participants (61% female; median age, 58 years [interquartile range, 51-61 years]) were included. Of the included studies, there were 25 trials of neuropathic pain, 32 trials of nociceptive pain, 33 trials of central sensitization (pain present in the absence of tissue damage), and 6 trials of mixed types of pain. Compared with placebo, opioid use was associated with reduced pain (weighted mean difference [WMD], -0.69 cm [95% CI, -0.82 to -0.56 cm] on a 10-cm visual analog scale for pain; modeled risk difference for achieving the MID, 11.9% [95% CI, 9.7% to 14.1%]), improved physical functioning (WMD, 2.04 points [95% CI, 1.41 to 2.68 points] on the 100-point SF-36 PCS; modeled risk difference for achieving the MID, 8.5% [95% CI, 5.9% to 11.2%]), and increased vomiting (5.9% with opioids vs 2.3% with placebo for trials that excluded patients with adverse events during a run-in period). Low- to moderate-quality evidence suggested similar associations of opioids with improvements in pain and physical functioning compared with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (pain: WMD, -0.60 cm [95% CI, -1.54 to 0.34 cm]; physical functioning: WMD, -0.90 points [95% CI, -2.69 to 0.89 points]), tricyclic antidepressants (pain: WMD, -0.13 cm [95% CI, -0.99 to 0.74 cm]; physical functioning: WMD, -5.31 points [95% CI, -13.77 to 3.14 points]), and anticonvulsants (pain: WMD, -0.90 cm [95% CI, -1.65 to -0.14 cm]; physical functioning: WMD, 0.45 points [95% CI, -5.77 to 6.66 points]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this meta-analysis of RCTs of patients with chronic noncancer pain, evidence from high-quality studies showed that opioid use was associated with statistically significant but small improvements in pain and physical functioning, and increased risk of vomiting compared with placebo. Comparisons of opioids with nonopioid alternatives suggested that the benefit for pain and functioning may be similar, although the evidence was from studies of only low to moderate quality.

Low back pain

Low back pain affects individuals of all ages and is a leading contributor to disease burden worldwide. Despite advancements in assessment and treatment methods, the management of low back pain remains a challenge for researchers and clinicians alike. One reason for the limited success in identifying effective treatments is the large variation in the manifestations, possible causes, precipitating and maintaining factors, course, prognosis and consequences in terms of activity interference and quality of life. However, despite these challenges, steady progress has been achieved in the understanding of back pain, and important steps in the understanding of the psychological and social risk factors, genetics and brain mechanisms of low back pain have been made. These new findings have given impetus to the development of new diagnostic procedures, evidence-based screening methods and more targeted interventions, which underscore the need for a multidisciplinary approach to the management of low back pain that integrates biological, psychological and social aspects.

Interspinous process decompression is associated with a reduction in opioid analgesia in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis

Background

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) causes significant pain and functional impairment, and medical management has increasingly included the prescription of opioid-based analgesics. Interspinous process decompression (IPD) provides a minimally-invasive treatment option for LSS.

Methods

This study estimated the type, dosage, and duration of opioid medications through 5 years of follow-up after IPD with the Superion Indirect Decompression System (Vertiflex Inc., Carlsbad, CA USA). Data were obtained from the Superion-treatment arm of a randomized controlled noninferiority trial. The prevalence of subjects using opiates was determined at baseline through 60 months. Primary analysis included all 190 patients randomized to receive the Superion device. In a subgroup of 98 subjects, we determined opioid-medication prevalence among subjects with a history of opioid use.

Results

At baseline, almost 50% (94 of 190) of subjects were using opioid medication. Thereafter, there was a sharp decrease in opioid-medication prevalence from 25.2% (41 of 163) at 12 months to 13.3% (20 of 150) at 24 months to 7.5% (8 of 107) at 60 months. Between baseline and 5 years, there was an 85% decrease in the proportion of subjects using opioids. A similar pattern was also observed among subjects with a history of opiates prior to entering the trial.

Conclusion

Stand-alone IPD is associated with a marked decrease in the need for opioid medications to manage symptoms related to LSS. In light of the current opiate epidemic, such alternatives as IPD may provide effective pain relief in patients with LSS without the need for opioid therapy.

Efficacy of Low-Dose Amitriptyline for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Antidepressants at low dose are commonly prescribed for the management of chronic low back pain and their use is recommended in international clinical guidelines. However, there is no evidence for their efficacy.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the efficacy of a low-dose antidepressant compared with an active comparator in reducing pain, disability, and work absence and hindrance in individuals with chronic low back pain.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A double-blind, randomized clinical trial with a 6-month follow-up of adults with chronic, nonspecific, low back pain who were recruited through hospital/medical clinics and advertising was carried out.

INTERVENTION

Low-dose amitriptyline (25 mg/d) or an active comparator (benztropine mesylate, 1 mg/d) for 6 months.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was pain intensity measured at 3 and 6 months using the visual analog scale and Descriptor Differential Scale. Secondary outcomes included disability assessed using the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire and work absence and hindrance assessed using the Short Form Health and Labour Questionnaire.

RESULTS

Of the 146 randomized participants (90 [61.6%] male; mean [SD] age, 54.8 [13.7] years), 118 (81%) completed 6-month follow-up. Treatment with low-dose amitriptyline did not result in greater pain reduction than the comparator at 6 (adjusted difference, -7.81; 95% CI, -15.7 to 0.10) or 3 months (adjusted difference, -1.05; 95% CI, -7.87 to 5.78), independent of baseline pain. There was no statistically significant difference in disability between the groups at 6 months (adjusted difference, -0.98; 95% CI, -2.42 to 0.46); however, there was a statistically significant improvement in disability for the low-dose amitriptyline group at 3 months (adjusted difference, -1.62; 95% CI, -2.88 to -0.36). There were no differences between the groups in work outcomes at 6 months (adjusted difference, absence: 1.51; 95% CI, 0.43-5.38; hindrance: 0.53; 95% CI, 0.19-1.51), or 3 months (adjusted difference, absence: 0.86; 95% CI, 0.32-2.31; hindrance: 0.78; 95% CI, 0.29-2.08), or in the number of participants who withdrew owing to adverse events (9 [12%] in each group; χ2 = 0.004; P = .95).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This trial suggests that amitriptyline may be an effective treatment for chronic low back pain. There were no significant improvements in outcomes at 6 months, but there was a reduction in disability at 3 months, an improvement in pain intensity that was nonsignificant at 6 months, and minimal adverse events reported with a low-dose, modest sample size and active comparator. Although large-scale clinical trials that include dose escalation are needed, it may be worth considering low-dose amitriptyline if the only alternative is an opioid.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12612000131853.

Health-Related Quality of Life among Chronic Opioid Users, Nonchronic Opioid Users, and Nonopioid Users with Chronic Noncancer Pain

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the association between opioid therapy and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in participants with chronic, noncancer pain (CNCP).

DATA SOURCES

Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Longitudinal, Medical Conditions, and Prescription Files.

STUDY DESIGN

Using a retrospective cohort study design, the Mental Health Component (MCS12) and Physical Health Component (PCS12) scores of the Short Form-12 Version 2 were assessed to measure mental and physical HRQoL.

DATA COLLECTION

Chronic, noncancer pain participants were classified as chronic, nonchronic, and nonopioid users. One-to-one propensity score matching was employed to match chronic opioid users to nonchronic opioid users plus nonchronic opioid users and chronic opioid users to nonopioid users.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

A total of 5,876 participants were identified. After matching, PCS12 was not significantly different between nonchronic versus nonopioid users (LSM Diff = -0.98, 95% CI: -2.07, 0.10), chronic versus nonopioid users (LSM Diff = -2.24, 95% CI: -4.58, 0.10), or chronic versus nonchronic opioid users (LSM Diff = -2.23, 95% CI: -4.53, 0.05). Similarly, MCS12 was not significantly different between nonchronic versus nonopioid users (LSM Diff = 0.76, 95% CI: -0.46, 1.98), chronic versus nonopioid users (LSM Diff = 1.08, 95% CI: -1.26, 3.42), or chronic versus nonchronic opioid users (LSM Diff = -0.57, 95% CI: -2.90, 1.77).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians should evaluate opioid use in participants with CNCP as opioid use is not correlated with better HRQoL.

Primary care physicians' attitude and reported prescribing behavior for chronic low back pain: An exploratory cross-sectional study

Objective

Recent guidelines for chronic or recurrent low back pain recommend non-pharmacologic treatments as first-line options. The objective of this study was thus to explore the perceived usefulness of several conventional and complementary medicine treatments for chronic or recurrent low back pain by primary care physicians and their reported prescribing behavior.

Design

An exploratory cross-sectional study.

Setting and participants

Primary care physicians of the French-speaking part of Switzerland.

Main outcome measures

Primary care physicians’ perceived usefulness of each conventional and complementary medicine treatment and their reported recommendation behavior were considered dependent variables in multivariate logistic regression models. All correlations were computed between binary variables, and phi coefficients were calculated to estimate correlation strengths.

Results

533 primary care physicians answered the questionnaire (response rate: 25.6%). The top 3 conventional treatments most often considered useful by primary care physicians for chronic or recurrent low back pain were physiotherapy (94.8%), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (87.9%), and manual therapy (82.5%), whereas the most prescribed conventional treatments were physiotherapy (99.2%), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (97.4%), and acetaminophen (94.4%). Osteopathic treatment (78.4%), yoga (69.3%), and therapeutic massage (63.9%) were the complementary medicine treatments most often considered useful by primary care physicians in managing chronic or recurrent low back pain. Being a female physician, younger than 56 years, trained in complementary medicine, or using complementary medicine were all associated with higher perceived usefulness of complementary medicine treatments in general. The most recommended complementary medicine treatments by primary care physicians were osteopathic treatment (87.3%), acupuncture (69.3%), and therapeutic massage (58.7%). Being a female physician, younger than 56, and using complementary medicine were all associated with more complementary medicine recommendation in general.

Conclusion

Our results highlight the importance of better understanding the prescribing patterns of primary care physicians for chronic or recurrent low back pain. Considering the frequency and burden of chronic or recurrent low back pain, programs focusing on the most (cost-) effective treatments should be implemented.

Impact of an innovative pain elective course on student beliefs and attitudes towards opioid medication use

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

To determine if an innovative elective course in chronic pain management focused on a multimodal treatment approach changed student views on opioid use for chronic, non-cancer pain.

EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY AND SETTING

Offered to students in the second and third professional year, the course focused on various aspects of the treatment and impact of pain. Students completed two major, self-directed projects as well as four reflection journals throughout the semester. A nine question survey was provided to students on the first and last day of class that identified their beliefs and attitudes towards opioid use in chronic non-cancer pain using a five point Likert scale.

FINDINGS

There was a statistical difference in one question asking if long acting opioids were effective in controlling pain long term.

SUMMARY

There was evidence of change in student perceptions. Similar self-directed courses should be considered by other institutions as a means to change student beliefs and attitudes.

A novel mouse model of intervertebral disc degeneration shows altered cell fate and matrix homeostasis

Intervertebral disc degeneration and associated low back and neck pain is a ubiquitous health condition that affects millions of people world-wide, and causes high incidence of disability and enormous medical/societal costs. However, lack of appropriate small animal models with spontaneous disease onset has impeded our ability to understand the pathogenetic mechanisms that characterize and drive the degenerative process. We report, for the first time, early onset spontaneous disc degeneration in SM/J mice known for their poor regenerative capacities compared to "super-healer" LG/J mice. In SM/J mice, degenerative process was marked by decreased nucleus pulposus (NP) cellularity and changes in matrix composition at P7, 4, and 8 weeks with increased severity by 17 weeks. Distinctions between NP and annulus fibrosus (AF) or endplate cartilage were lost, and NP and AF of SM/J mice showed higher histological grades. There was increased NP cell death in SM/J mice with decreased phenotypic marker expression. Polarized microscopy and FTIR spectroscopy demonstrated replacement of glycosaminoglycan-rich NP matrix with collagenous fibrous tissue. The levels of ARGxx were increased in, indicating higher aggrecan turnover. Furthermore, an aberrant expression of collagen X and MMP13 was observed in the NP of SM/J mice, along with elevated expression of Col10a1, Ctgf, and Runx2, markers of chondrocyte hypertrophy. Likewise, expression of Enpp1 as well as Alpl was higher, suggesting NP cells of SM/J mice promote dystrophic mineralization. There was also a decrease in several pathways necessary for NP cell survival and function including Wnt and VEGF signaling. Importantly, SM/J discs were stiffer, had decreased height, and poor vertebral bone quality, suggesting compromised motion segment mechanical functionality. Taken together, our results clearly demonstrate that SM/J mouse strain recapitulates many salient features of human disc degeneration, and serves as a novel small animal model.

Pain education for patients with non-specific low back pain in Nepal: protocol of a feasibility randomised clinical trial (PEN-LBP Trial)

INTRODUCTION

Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of years lived with disability in Nepal and elsewhere. Management of LBP that is evidence-based, easily accessible, cost-effective and culturally appropriate is desirable. The primary aim of this feasibility study is to determine if it is feasible to conduct a full randomised clinical trial evaluating the effectiveness of pain education as an intervention for individuals with LBP in Nepal, relative to guideline-based physiotherapy treatment. The findings of the study will inform the planning of a full clinical trial and if any modifications are required to the protocol before undertaking a full trial.

METHODS/ANALYSIS

This protocol describes an assessor-blinded feasibility clinical trial investigating feasibility of the pain education intervention in patients with non-specific LBP in a physiotherapy hospital in Kathmandu, Nepal. Forty patients with LBP will be randomly allocated to either pain education or guideline-based physiotherapy treatment (control). Outcomes will be assessed at baseline and at a 1 week post-treatment. The primary outcomes are related to feasibility, including: (1) participant willingness to participate in a randomised clinical trial, (2) feasibility of assessor blinding, (3) eligibility and recruitment rates, (4) acceptability of screening procedures and random allocation, (5) possible contamination between the groups, (6) intervention credibility, (7) intervention adherence, (8) treatment satisfaction and (9) difficulty in understanding the interventions being provided.

ETHICS/DISSEMINATION

The protocol was approved by Nepal Health Research Council (NHRC; registration number: 422/2017) and University of Otago Human Ethics Committee for Health (registration number: H17/157). The results of the study will be presented at national and international conferences and published in a peer-reviewed journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03387228; Pre-results.

Predictors of discontinuation, efficacy, and safety of memantine treatment for Alzheimer's disease: meta-analysis and meta-regression of 18 randomized clinical trials involving 5004 patients

BACKGROUND

The risk-benefit relationship of memantine treatment for Alzheimer's disease (AD) remains unclear. In addition, variability between the results of clinical trials has been observed. The aim of this study was to investigate the risk-benefit relationship of memantine treatment in patients with AD and to determine the predictor effect of patient, intervention, and study design related covariates.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of double-blind, placebo controlled clinical trials was performed. Primary outcomes were all-cause discontinuation, discontinuation due to adverse events (AE) and efficacy on cognitive function. Odds ratio (OR) and standard mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Meta-regression was conducted to identify related covariates. Cochrane Collaboration tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias of included trials.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies involving 5004 patients were included. No differences between memantine and placebo were found for all-cause treatment discontinuation (OR=0.97 [0.82, 1.14]) and discontinuation due to AE (OR=1.18 [0.91, 1.53]). Memantine showed small improvement on cognitive function (SMD=0.15 [0.08, 0.22]). Baseline functional ability was positively associated with all-cause treatment discontinuation and discontinuation due to AE.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that memantine has a very small efficacy on AD symptomatology and its safety profile is similar to that of placebo. No evidence of treatment discontinuation improvement with memantine is found, indicating a dubious risk-benefit relationship. No intervention characteristic or subgroup of patients clearly shows a significantly better risk-benefit relationship.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION

CRD42014015696 .

Acupuncture's Role in Solving the Opioid Epidemic: Evidence, Cost-Effectiveness, and Care Availability for Acupuncture as a Primary, Non-Pharmacologic Method for Pain Relief and Management-White Paper 2017

The United States (U.S.) is facing a national opioid epidemic, and medical systems are in need of non-pharmacologic strategies that can be employed to decrease the public's opioid dependence. Acupuncture has emerged as a powerful, evidence-based, safe, cost-effective, and available treatment modality suitable to meeting this need. Acupuncture has been shown to be effective for the management of numerous types of pain conditions, and mechanisms of action for acupuncture have been described and are understandable from biomedical, physiologic perspectives. Further, acupuncture's cost-effectiveness can dramatically decrease health care expenditures, both from the standpoint of treating acute pain and through avoiding addiction to opioids that requires costly care, destroys quality of life, and can lead to fatal overdose. Numerous federal regulatory agencies have advised or mandated that healthcare systems and providers offer non-pharmacologic treatment options for pain. Acupuncture stands out as the most evidence-based, immediately available choice to fulfil these calls. Acupuncture can safely, easily, and cost-effectively be incorporated into hospital settings as diverse as the emergency department, labor and delivery suites, and neonatal intensive care units to treat a variety of commonly seen pain conditions. Acupuncture is already being successfully and meaningfully utilized by the Veterans Administration and various branches of the U.S. Military, in some studies demonstrably decreasing the volume of opioids prescribed when included in care.

Clinical practice guidelines for the management of non-specific low back pain in primary care: an updated overview

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to provide an overview of the recommendations regarding the diagnosis and treatment contained in current clinical practice guidelines for patients with non-specific low back pain in primary care. We also aimed to examine how recommendations have changed since our last overview in 2010.

METHOD

The searches for clinical practice guidelines were performed for the period from 2008 to 2017 in electronic databases. Guidelines including information regarding either the diagnosis or treatment of non-specific low back pain, and targeted at a multidisciplinary audience in the primary care setting, were considered eligible. We extracted data regarding recommendations for diagnosis and treatment, and methods for development of guidelines.

RESULTS

We identified 15 clinical practice guidelines for the management of low back pain in primary care. For diagnosis of patients with non-specific low back pain, the clinical practice guidelines recommend history taking and physical examination to identify red flags, neurological testing to identify radicular syndrome, use of imaging if serious pathology is suspected (but discourage routine use), and assessment of psychosocial factors. For treatment of patients with acute low back pain, the guidelines recommend reassurance on the favourable prognosis and advice on returning to normal activities, avoiding bed rest, the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and weak opioids for short periods. For treatment of patients with chronic low back pain, the guidelines recommend the use of NSAIDs and antidepressants, exercise therapy, and psychosocial interventions. In addition, referral to a specialist is recommended in case of suspicion of specific pathologies or radiculopathy or if there is no improvement after 4 weeks. While there were a few discrepancies across the current clinical practice guidelines, a substantial proportion of recommendations was consistently endorsed. In the current review, we identified some differences compared to the previous overview regarding the recommendations for assessment of psychosocial factors, the use of some medications (e.g., paracetamol) as well as an increasing amount of information regarding the types of exercise, mode of delivery, acupuncture, herbal medicines, and invasive treatments. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Effects of long-term opioid analgesics on cognitive performance and plasma cytokine concentrations in patients with chronic low back pain: a cross-sectional pilot study

INTRODUCTION

Cognitive performance and inflammation are altered in people with chronic low back pain (CLBP). Yet, the magnitude of these changes has been unclear because of the potential influence of opioid analgesics.

OBJECTIVES

This cross-sectional pilot study aimed to explore whether patients with CLBP receiving long-term opioid analgesics differed from patients not taking opioids on measures of cognitive performance and plasma cytokine concentrations.

METHODS

Patients with CLBP who were either taking (N = 18) or not taking (N = 22) opioids daily for 3 or more months were recruited from a tertiary care private hospital and compared with healthy adults (N = 20). All groups were administered validated questionnaires to assess depression, anxiety, and stress; a cognitive test of memory, attention, and executive function; and a peripheral blood draw to measure proinflammatory (IL-1β, IL-2, IL-8, IL-12p70, TNF-α, and IFN-γ), anti-inflammatory (IL-4, IL-10, and IL-13), and pleiotropic (IL-6) cytokine concentrations. Patients also completed pain-specific questionnaires.

RESULTS

Patients receiving opioid analgesics performed significantly (P < 0.05) worse in attention and had significantly (P < 0.05) lower pain self-efficacy beliefs than those patients not taking opioids. Patient groups did not differ in mean pain severity or pain interference scores, tests of memory and executive function, and mean plasma cytokine concentrations, despite long-term opioid analgesics.

CONCLUSION

Patients receiving long-term opioid analgesics for CLBP have minor differences when compared with patients not taking opioids. This has important clinical implications when considering long-term treatment for patients with CLBP.

Prevention and treatment of low back pain: evidence, challenges, and promising directions

Many clinical practice guidelines recommend similar approaches for the assessment and management of low back pain. Recommendations include use of a biopsychosocial framework to guide management with initial non-pharmacological treatment, including education that supports self-management and resumption of normal activities and exercise, and psychological programmes for those with persistent symptoms. Guidelines recommend prudent use of medication, imaging, and surgery. The recommendations are based on trials almost exclusively from high-income countries, focused mainly on treatments rather than on prevention, with limited data for cost-effectiveness. However, globally, gaps between evidence and practice exist, with limited use of recommended first-line treatments and inappropriately high use of imaging, rest, opioids, spinal injections, and surgery. Doing more of the same will not reduce back-related disability or its long-term consequences. The advances with the greatest potential are arguably those that align practice with the evidence, reduce the focus on spinal abnormalities, and ensure promotion of activity and function, including work participation. We have identified effective, promising, or emerging solutions that could offer new directions, but that need greater attention and further research to determine if they are appropriate for large-scale implementation. These potential solutions include focused strategies to implement best practice, the redesign of clinical pathways, integrated health and occupational interventions to reduce work disability, changes in compensation and disability claims policies, and public health and prevention strategies.

Efficacy of opioids versus placebo in chronic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of enriched enrollment randomized withdrawal trials

Introduction

Opioids have been used for millennia for the treatment of pain. However, the long-term efficacy of opioids to treat chronic non-cancer pain continues to be debated. To evaluate opioids’ efficacy in chronic non-cancer pain, we performed a meta-analysis of published clinical trials for μ-opioid receptor agonists performed for US Food and Drug Administration approval.

Methods

MEDLINE and Cochrane trial register were searched for enriched enrollment randomized withdrawal studies (before June 2016). Selection criteria included: adults, ≥10 subjects per arm, any chronic pain condition, double-blind treatment period lasting ≥12 weeks, and all μ-agonist opioids approved in the USA.

Results

Fifteen studies met criteria. Opioid efficacy was statistically significant (p<0.001) versus placebo for pain intensity (standardized mean difference: −0.416), ≥30% and ≥50% improvement in pain (risk difference: 0.166 and 0.137), patient global impression of change (0.163), and patient global assessment of study medication (0.194). There were minor benefits on physical function and no effect on mental function.

Conclusion

Opioids are efficacious in the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain for up to 3 months in randomized controlled trials. This should be considered, alongside data on opioid safety, in the use of opioids for the treatment of chronic pain.

Implementation of an evidence-based model of care for low back pain in emergency departments: protocol for the Sydney Health Partners Emergency Department (SHaPED) trial

INTRODUCTION

Patients with low back pain often seek care in emergency departments, but the problem is that many patients receive unnecessary or ineffective interventions and at the same time miss out on the basics of care, such as advice on self-management. This pattern of care has important consequences for the healthcare system (expensive and inefficient) and for patients (poor health outcomes). We hypothesised that the implementation of an evidence-based model of care for low back pain will improve emergency care by reducing inappropriate overuse of tests and treatments and improving patient outcomes.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial will be conducted to implement and evaluate the use of the Agency for Clinical Innovation (ACI) model of care for acute low back pain at four emergency departments in New South Wales, Australia. Clinician participants will be emergency physicians, nurses and physiotherapists. Codes from the Systematised Nomenclature of Medicine-Clinical Terms-Australian version will be used to identify low back pain presentations. The intervention, targeting emergency clinicians, will comprise educational materials and seminars and an audit and feedback approach. Health service delivery outcomes are routinely collected measures of imaging (primary outcome), opioid use and inpatient admission. A random subsample of 200 patient participants from each trial period will be included to measure patient outcomes (pain intensity, physical function, quality of life and experience with emergency service). The effectiveness of the intervention will be assessed by comparing the postintervention period with the retrospective baseline control period.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study received ethical approval from the Sydney Local Health District (Royal Prince Alfred Hospital zone) Ethics Committee (X17-0043). The results of this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at international conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN 12617001160325.

Effectiveness of long-term opioid therapy among chronic non-cancer pain patients attending multidisciplinary pain treatment clinics: A Quebec Pain Registry study

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to investigate in a real-life context the effectiveness of long-term opioid therapy for reducing pain intensity and interference and improving health-related quality of life (QOL) in patients with chronic noncancer pain.

METHODS

Participants were 893 patients (age = 52.4 ± 14.1, female = 62.4%) enrolled in the Quebec Pain Registry (2008-2011) who completed questionnaires before their first visit at one of three multidisciplinary pain management clinics and 6 and 12 months thereafter. Based on their opioid use profile (OUP), patients were categorized as nonusers, non-lasting users, or lasting users. Data were analyzed using generalized estimating equations.

RESULTS

More than 60% of patients newly initiated on opioid therapy stopped their medication mainly because of adverse effects and/or lack of pain relief. OUP significantly predicted pain intensity and interference and physical QOL (pQOL; P values < 0.001). Lasting users of opioids reported higher levels of pain intensity and interference and poorer pQOL than nonusers and/or non-lasting users over the 12-month follow-up (P values < 0.001). However, all effect sizes were small, thus questioning the clinical significance of these group differences. Among lasting users, more than 20% of patients experienced a meaningful amelioration in pain intensity and interference as well as mental QOL (mQOL), whereas only 8% exhibited improved pQOL.

DISCUSSION

A significant subgroup of patients may benefit from long-term opioid therapy in terms of pain severity and mQOL but the majority do not. The challenge facing clinicians is how to identify who the responders will be.

Preoperative Opioid Use is a Predictor of Poor Return to Work in Workers' Compensation Patients After Lumbar Diskectomy

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective cohort.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine the impact of preoperative opioid use in workers' compensation (WC) patients undergoing lumbar diskectomy (LD).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The prevalence of back pain among opioid users approached 60%. Long-term opioid dependence in spine surgery patients is roughly 20%. Despite pervasive use, there is no evidence to support long-term opioid analgesic use for back pain.

METHODS

Ten thousand five hundred ninety-two patients received compensation from the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation for a lumbar disc herniation between 2005 and 2012. Patients with spine comorbidities, smoking history, or multilevel surgery were excluded. Preoperatively, 566 patients had no opioid use, 126 had short-term opioid use (STO), 315 had moderate opioid use (MTO), and 279 had long-term opioid use (LTO). The primary outcome was whether subjects returned to work (RTW).

RESULTS

Seven hundred twelve (55.4%) patients met our RTW criteria. There was a significant difference in RTW rates among the no opioid (64.1%), MTO (52.7%), and LTO (36.9%) populations. Multivariate logistic regression analysis found several covariates to be independent negative predictors of RTW status: preoperative opioid use [P < 0.01; odds ratio (OR) = 0.54], time to surgery (P < 0.01; OR = 0.98 per month), legal representation (P < 0.01; OR = 0.57), and psychiatric comorbidity (P = 0.02; OR = 0.36). Patients in the LTO group had higher medical costs (P < 0.01), rates of psychiatric comorbidity (P < 0.01), incidence of failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) (P < 0.01), and postoperative opioid use (P < 0.01) compared with the STO and no opioid groups.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative opioid use was determined to be a negative predictor of RTW rates after LD in WC patients. In addition, long-term preoperative opioid use was associated with higher medical costs, psychiatric illness, FBSS, and postoperative opioid use. Even a short or moderate course of preoperative opioids was associated with worse outcomes compared with no use. For WC patients undergoing LD, judicious use of preoperative opioid analgesics may improve clinical outcomes and reduce the opioid burden.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Hypnosis Enhances the Effects of Pain Education in Patients With Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial

The potential benefits of combining pain education (PE) with clinical hypnosis (CH) has not yet been investigated in individuals with chronic pain. A total of 100 patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain were randomized to receive either: 1) PE alone, or 2) PE with CH. Outcomes were collected by a blinded assessor at 2 weeks and 3 months after randomization. The primary outcomes were average pain intensity, worst pain intensity (both assessed with 11-point numeric rating scales), and disability (24-item Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire) at 2 weeks. At 2 weeks, participants who received PE with CH reported lower worst pain intensity (mean difference = 1.35 points, 95% confidence interval [CI] = .32-2.37) and disability (mean difference = 2.34 points, 95% CI = .06-4.61), but not average pain intensity (mean difference = .67 point, 95% CI = -.27 to 1.62), relative to participants who received PE alone. PE with CH participants also reported more global perceived benefits at 2 weeks (mean difference = -1.98 points, 95% CI = -3.21 to -.75). At 3 months, participants who received PE with CH reported lower worst pain intensity (mean difference = 1.32 points, 95% CI = .29-2.34) and catastrophizing (mean difference = 5.30 points, 95% CI = 1.20-9.41). No adverse effects in either treatment condition were reported. To our knowledge, this is the first trial showing that additional use of hypnosis with PE results in improved outcomes over PE alone in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain.

PERSPECTIVE

This study provides evidence supporting the efficacy of another treatment option for teaching patients to self-manage chronic low back pain that has a relatively low cost and that can be offered in groups.

Pharmacotherapy for chronic non-specific low back pain: current and future options

INTRODUCTION

Low back pain is associated with a large burden-of-illness. It is responsible for the most years lived with disability as compared with any other medical condition. A comprehensive overview of the evidence on pharmacological treatment options for chronic low back pain is lacking. This review evaluates the evidence for the benefits and risks of currently available pharmacological treatments for chronic low back pain.

AREAS COVERED

The authors focus on the recent (Cochrane) systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials covering paracetamol (acetaminophen), NSAIDs, muscle relaxants, antidepressants, anticonvulsants, opioids, and other (new) drugs.

EXPERT OPINION

The overall impression of the efficacy of pharmacological treatments for patients with chronic low back pain is rather sobering. The effects on pain reduction and improvement of function are commonly small to moderate and short lasting when compared to placebo. At the same time, the various types of drugs are not without side-effects. This holds especially true for serious side-effects associated with (prolonged) use of strong opioids. Future studies on patients with chronic back pain should aim to identify subgroups of patients with good response to specific pharmacological treatment to facilitate personalized care.

Effect of Opioid vs Nonopioid Medications on Pain-Related Function in Patients With Chronic Back Pain or Hip or Knee Osteoarthritis Pain: The SPACE Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Limited evidence is available regarding long-term outcomes of opioids compared with nonopioid medications for chronic pain.

Objective

To compare opioid vs nonopioid medications over 12 months on pain-related function, pain intensity, and adverse effects.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Pragmatic, 12-month, randomized trial with masked outcome assessment. Patients were recruited from Veterans Affairs primary care clinics from June 2013 through December 2015; follow-up was completed December 2016. Eligible patients had moderate to severe chronic back pain or hip or knee osteoarthritis pain despite analgesic use. Of 265 patients enrolled, 25 withdrew prior to randomization and 240 were randomized.

Interventions

Both interventions (opioid and nonopioid medication therapy) followed a treat-to-target strategy aiming for improved pain and function. Each intervention had its own prescribing strategy that included multiple medication options in 3 steps. In the opioid group, the first step was immediate-release morphine, oxycodone, or hydrocodone/acetaminophen. For the nonopioid group, the first step was acetaminophen (paracetamol) or a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug. Medications were changed, added, or adjusted within the assigned treatment group according to individual patient response.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was pain-related function (Brief Pain Inventory [BPI] interference scale) over 12 months and the main secondary outcome was pain intensity (BPI severity scale). For both BPI scales (range, 0-10; higher scores = worse function or pain intensity), a 1-point improvement was clinically important. The primary adverse outcome was medication-related symptoms (patient-reported checklist; range, 0-19).

Results

Among 240 randomized patients (mean age, 58.3 years; women, 32 [13.0%]), 234 (97.5%) completed the trial. Groups did not significantly differ on pain-related function over 12 months (overall P = .58); mean 12-month BPI interference was 3.4 for the opioid group and 3.3 for the nonopioid group (difference, 0.1 [95% CI, -0.5 to 0.7]). Pain intensity was significantly better in the nonopioid group over 12 months (overall P = .03); mean 12-month BPI severity was 4.0 for the opioid group and 3.5 for the nonopioid group (difference, 0.5 [95% CI, 0.0 to 1.0]). Adverse medication-related symptoms were significantly more common in the opioid group over 12 months (overall P = .03); mean medication-related symptoms at 12 months were 1.8 in the opioid group and 0.9 in the nonopioid group (difference, 0.9 [95% CI, 0.3 to 1.5]).

Conclusions and Relevance

Treatment with opioids was not superior to treatment with nonopioid medications for improving pain-related function over 12 months. Results do not support initiation of opioid therapy for moderate to severe chronic back pain or hip or knee osteoarthritis pain.

Trial Registration

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01583985.

Opioid prescribing and adverse events in opioid-naive patients treated by emergency physicians versus family physicians: a population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

Emergency physicians provide primary care to patients and often prescribe opioids for acutely painful self-limiting conditions. The objective of this study was to describe patterns of opioid prescribing by emergency physicians and family physicians and to explore the relation between setting of initiation of opioid treatment and adverse events over the subsequent 2 years.

METHODS

This was a population-based cohort study using administrative data from Ontario. Opioid-naive patients aged 15-64 years who received an opioid prescription for noncancer pain from an emergency or family physician between Apr. 1, 2008, and Mar. 31, 2012 were eligible for inclusion.

RESULTS

A total of 34 713 and 45 952 patients were initiated on an opioid by an emergency physicians and family physicians, respectively. Both emergency and family physicians most commonly prescribed codeine-containing products (58.9% and 79.6% of prescriptions, respectively); however, emergency physicians were twice as likely as family physicians to prescribe higher-potency opioids (morphine, oxycodone, hydromorphone, fentanyl, meperidine) (both combination and single-agent preparations) (40.6% v. 19.9%, ∆ = 20.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 20.0-21.3). Compared to patients in the family physician group, those in the emergency physician group received significantly higher daily dosages, a higher proportion were initiated on a daily dosage of 100 mg of morphine equivalents (MEQs) or more, and had a hospital admission for opioid toxicity within 2 years (0.5% v. 0.3%, ∆ = 0.2%, 95% CI 0.1%-0.3%). A higher proportion of patients in the family physician group than in the emergency physician group had dosage escalation beyond 199 mg MEQs within 2 years (0.7% v. 0.1%, ∆ = 0.6%, 95% CI 0.5%-0.7%).

INTERPRETATION

Codeine was the most common opioid prescribed by emergency and family physicians. Compared to patients prescribed opioids by family physicians, those prescribed opioids by emergency physicians received higher initial daily dosages and had an increased likelihood of opioid toxicity.

Forecasting the future burden of opioids for osteoarthritis

OBJECTIVE

To quantify the current national burden of opioids for osteoarthritis (OA) pain in Australia in terms of number of dispensed opioid prescriptions and associated costs, and to forecast the likely burden to the year 2030/31.

DESIGN

Epidemiological modelling.

METHODS

Published data were obtained on rates of opioid prescribing for people with OA and national OA prevalence projections. Trends in opioid dispensing from 2006 to 2016, and average costs for common opioid subtypes were obtained from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and Medicare Australia Statistics. Using these inputs, a model was developed to estimate the likely number of dispensed opioid prescriptions and costs to the public healthcare system by 2030/31.

RESULTS

In 2015/16, an estimated 1.1 million opioid prescriptions were dispensed in Australia for 403,954 people with OA (of a total 2.2 million Australians with OA). Based on recent dispensing trends and OA prevalence projections, the number of dispensed opioid prescriptions is expected to nearly triple to 3,032,332 by 2030/31, for an estimated 562,610 people with OA. The estimated cost to the Australian healthcare system was $AUD25.2 million in 2015/16, rising to $AUD72.4 million by 2030/31.

CONCLUSION

OA-related opioid dispensing and associated costs are set to increase substantially in Australia from 2015/16 to 2030/31. Use of opioids for OA pain is concerning given joint disease chronicity and the risk of adverse events, particularly among older people. These projections represent a conservative estimate of the full financial burden given additional costs associated with opioid-related harms and out-of-pocket costs borne by patients.

Alcohol and Opioid Use, Co-Use, and Chronic Pain in the Context of the Opioid Epidemic: A Critical Review

The dramatic increase in opioid misuse, opioid use disorder (OUD), and opioid-related overdose deaths in the United States has led to public outcry, policy statements, and funding initiatives. Meanwhile, alcohol misuse and alcohol use disorder (AUD) are a highly prevalent public health problem associated with considerable individual and societal costs. This study provides a critical review of alcohol and opioid misuse, including issues of prevalence, morbidity, and societal costs. We also review research on interactions between alcohol and opioid use, the influence of opioids and alcohol on AUD and OUD treatment outcomes, respectively, the role of pain in the co-use of alcohol and opioids, and treatment of comorbid OUD and AUD. Heavy drinking, opioid misuse, and chronic pain individually represent significant public health problems. Few studies have examined co-use of alcohol and opioids, but available data suggest that co-use is common and likely contributes to opioid overdose-related morbidity and mortality. Co-use of opioids and alcohol is related to worse outcomes in treatment for either substance. Finally, chronic pain frequently co-occurs with use (and co-use) of alcohol and opioids. Opioid use and alcohol use are also likely to complicate the treatment of chronic pain. Research on the interactions between alcohol and opioids, as well as treatment of the comorbid disorders is lacking. Currently, most alcohol research excludes patients with OUD and there is lack of measurement in both AUD and OUD research in relation to pain-related functioning. Research in those with chronic pain often assesses opioid use, but rarely assesses alcohol use or AUD. New research to examine the nexus of alcohol, opioids, and pain, as well as their treatment, is critically needed.

Evidence-based pain medicine for primary care physicians

The last several decades have seen a marked increase in both the recognition and treatment of chronic pain. Unfortunately, patients frequently misunderstand both the nature of pain and the best practices for its treatment. Because primary care physicians treat the majority of chronic pain, they are ideally situated to provide evidence-based pain care. The majority of the medical evidence supports a biopsychosocial model of pain that integrates physical, emotional, social, and cultural variables. The goal of this primer is to assist primary care physicians in their understanding of pain, evaluation of the chronic pain patient, and ability to direct evidence-based care. This article will discuss the role of physical rehabilitation, pain psychology, pharmacotherapy, and procedural interventions in the treatment of chronic pain. Given the current epidemic of drug-related deaths, particular emphasis is placed on the alternatives to opioid therapy. Unfortunately, death is not the only significant complication from opioid therapy, and this article discusses many of the most common side effects. This article provides general guidelines on the most appropriate utilization of opioids with emphasis on the recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines, risk stratification, and patient monitoring. Finally, the article concludes with the critical role that a pain medicine specialist can play in the management of patients with chronic pain.

Non-Specific Low Back Pain

BACKGROUND

For many years, low back pain has been both the leading cause of days lost from work and the leading indication for medical rehabilitation. The goal of the German Disease Management Guideline (NDMG) on nonspecific low back pain is to improve the treatment of patients with this condition.

METHODS

The current update of the NDMG on non-specific low back pain is based on articles retrieved by a systematic search of the literature for systematic reviews. Its recommendations for diagnosis and treatment were developed by a collaborative effort of 29 scientific medical societies and organizations and approved in a formal consensus process.

RESULTS

If the history and physical examination do not arouse any suspicion of a dangerous underlying cause, no further diagnostic evaluation is indicated for the time being. Passive, reactive measures should be taken only in combination with activating measures, or not at all. When drugs are used for symptomatic treatment, patients should be treated with the most suitable drug in the lowest possible dose and for as short a time as possible.

CONCLUSION

A physician should be in charge of the overall care process. The patient should be kept well informed over the entire course of his or her illness and should be encouraged to adopt a healthful lifestyle, including regular physical exercise.

Outpatient, combined use of opioid and benzodiazepine medications in the United States, 1993-2014

The combined use of opioid and benzodiazepine medications increases the risk of hazardous effects, such as respiratory depression. Although recent increases in outpatient use of opioid prescriptions have been documented, there are limited data regarding rates and correlates of combined opioid and benzodiazepines among adults in outpatient settings. Our objective was to examine annual trends in outpatient visits including opioids, benzodiazepines, and their combination among adults as well as clinical and demographic correlates. We used data from the 1993–2014 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) among non-elderly (i.e., ages 18–64 years) adults to examine the probability of a visit including an opioid, benzodiazepine, or their combination, in addition to clinical and demographic correlates. From 1993 to 2014, benzodiazepines-with-opioids visits increased from 9.8 to 62.5 (OR = 9.23, 95% CI = 5.45–15.65) per 10,000 visits. Highest-represented groups among benzodiazepines-with-opioids visits were older (50–64 years) (49.1%), white (88.8%), commercially insured (58.0%) patients during their first visit (87.6%) to a primary-care physician (41.9%). We identified a significant increase in the outpatient co-prescription of opioids and benzodiazepines, notably among adults aged 50–64 years during primary-care visits. Educational and policy changes to provide alternatives to benzodiazepine-with-opioid co-prescription and limiting opioid prescription to pain specialists may reduce rates of this potentially hazardous combination.

•

Current guidelines for prescribing opioids recommend against co-administration with benzodiazepines

•

Concurrent use of opioids and benzodiazepines increases the risk of overdose, respiratory depression, and death.

•

We examined 22 years of outpatient prescribing patterns of opioids and benzodiazepines using a survey of US physicians.

•

Over this period, visits with both opioids and benzodiazepines increased from roughly 9.8 to 62.5 per 10,000 visits.

•

These visits were more likely among older (50–64 years), white, privately insured patients with a low-back pain diagnosis.

Efficacy and Safety of Oral and Transdermal Opioid Analgesics for Musculoskeletal Pain in Older Adults: A Systematic Review of Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trials

This systematic review with meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of using opioid analgesics in older adults with musculoskeletal pain. We searched Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, AMED, CINAHL, and LILACS for randomized controlled trials with mean population age of 60 years or older, comparing the efficacy and safety of opioid analgesics with placebo for musculoskeletal pain conditions. Reviewers extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and evaluated the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Random effects models were used to calculate standardized mean differences (when different scales were used across trials), mean differences and odds ratios with respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Meta-regressions were carried out to assess the influence of opioid analgesic daily dose and treatment duration on our main outcomes. We included 23 randomized placebo-controlled trials in the meta-analysis. Opioid analgesics had a small effect on decreasing pain intensity (standardized mean difference = -.27; 95% CI = -.33 to -.20) and improving function (standardized mean difference = -.27, 95% CI = -.36 to -.18), which was not associated with daily dose or treatment duration. The odds of adverse events were 3 times higher (odds ratio = 2.94; 95% CI = 2.33-3.72) and the odds of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events 4 times higher (odds ratio = 4.04; 95% CI = 3.10-5.25) in patients treated with opioid analgesics. The results show that in older adults suffering from musculoskeletal pain, using opioid analgesics had only a small effect on pain and function at the cost of a higher odds of adverse events and treatment discontinuation. For this specific population, the opioid-related risks may outweigh the benefits.

PERSPECTIVE

The systematic review shows that, in older adults suffering from musculoskeletal conditions, opioid analgesics have only a small effect on pain and disability. Conversely, this population is at higher risk of adverse events. The results may reflect age-related physiological changes in pain processing, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics.

The cardio-metabolic impact of taking commonly prescribed analgesic drugs in 133,401 UK Biobank participants

Objective

There has been a significant increase in the prescribing of medication for chronic non-cancer pain. In a UK population sample, we aimed to assess cardio-metabolic (CM) health in those taking these chronic pain medications.

Methods

133,401 participants from the UK Biobank cohort were studied. BMI, waist cm and hypertension were compared between those on drugs prescribed for chronic pain and CM drugs to those on CM drugs only. Multiple confounders were controlled for.

Results

Those taking opiates and CM drugs had the worst CM health profile with a 95%, 82% and 63% increased odds of reporting obesity, ‘very high risk’ waist circumference and hypertension, respectively (OR [95% CI] 1.95 [1.75–2.17], 1.82 [1.63–2.03], 1.63 [1.45–1.84]), compared to those on CM drugs alone. Those taking neuropathic pain medications and CM drugs also demonstrate worse CM profile than those taking CM drugs only.

Conclusions

The impact of medications for chronic pain and sleep upon CM health and obesity is of concern for these classes of drugs which have been recently labelled as dependency forming medications. The results from this cross sectional study warrants further investigation and adds further support to calls for these medications to be prescribed for shorter periods.

Innovative strategies for intervertebral disc regenerative medicine: From cell therapies to multiscale delivery systems

As our understanding of the physiopathology of intervertebral disc (IVD) degeneration has improved, novel therapeutic strategies have emerged, based on the local injection of cells, bioactive molecules, and nucleic acids. However, with regard to the harsh environment constituted by degenerated IVDs, protecting biologics from in situ degradation while allowing their long-term delivery is a major challenge. Yet, the design of the optimal approach for IVD regeneration is still under debate and only a few papers provide a critical assessment of IVD-specific carriers for local and sustained delivery of biologics. In this review, we highlight the IVD-relevant polymers as well as their design as macro-, micro-, and nano-sized particles to promote endogenous repair. Finally, we illustrate how multiscale systems, combining in situ-forming hydrogels with ready-to-use particles, might drive IVD regenerative medicine strategies toward innovation.

Associations between medical cannabis and prescription opioid use in chronic pain patients: A preliminary cohort study

BACKGROUND

Current levels and dangers of opioid use in the U.S. warrant the investigation of harm-reducing treatment alternatives.

PURPOSE

A preliminary, historical, cohort study was used to examine the association between enrollment in the New Mexico Medical Cannabis Program (MCP) and opioid prescription use.

METHODS

Thirty-seven habitual opioid using, chronic pain patients (mean age = 54 years; 54% male; 86% chronic back pain) enrolled in the MCP between 4/1/2010 and 10/3/2015 were compared to 29 non-enrolled patients (mean age = 60 years; 69% male; 100% chronic back pain). We used Prescription Monitoring Program opioid records over a 21 month period (first three months prior to enrollment for the MCP patients) to measure cessation (defined as the absence of opioid prescriptions activity during the last three months of observation) and reduction (calculated in average daily intravenous [IV] morphine dosages). MCP patient-reported benefits and side effects of using cannabis one year after enrollment were also collected.

RESULTS

By the end of the 21 month observation period, MCP enrollment was associated with 17.27 higher age- and gender-adjusted odds of ceasing opioid prescriptions (CI 1.89 to 157.36, p = 0.012), 5.12 higher odds of reducing daily prescription opioid dosages (CI 1.56 to 16.88, p = 0.007), and a 47 percentage point reduction in daily opioid dosages relative to a mean change of positive 10.4 percentage points in the comparison group (CI -90.68 to -3.59, p = 0.034). The monthly trend in opioid prescriptions over time was negative among MCP patients (-0.64mg IV morphine, CI -1.10 to -0.18, p = 0.008), but not statistically different from zero in the comparison group (0.18mg IV morphine, CI -0.02 to 0.39, p = 0.081). Survey responses indicated improvements in pain reduction, quality of life, social life, activity levels, and concentration, and few side effects from using cannabis one year after enrollment in the MCP (ps<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The clinically and statistically significant evidence of an association between MCP enrollment and opioid prescription cessation and reductions and improved quality of life warrants further investigations on cannabis as a potential alternative to prescription opioids for treating chronic pain.

Opioid-Induced Constipation Relief From Fixed-Ratio Combination Prolonged-Release Oxycodone/Naloxone Compared With Oxycodone and Morphine for Chronic Nonmalignant Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

CONTEXT

Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is one of the most frequent and severe adverse events (AEs) after treatment with opioids. Recent studies have indicated that fixed-ratio combination prolonged-release oxycodone/naloxone (OXN PR) could decrease OIC with similar pain relief compared with other opioids.

OBJECTIVES

We systematically reviewed (PROSPERO registration numbers: CRD42016036244) the constipation relief of OXN PR compared with other opioids regardless of formulation, prolonged release, or extended release used for the relief of chronic pain.

METHODS

Relevant studies were identified by searching PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane library from inception to May 2016, with an update to December 2016. We quantitatively analyzed OIC (assessed by bowel function index [BFI]), pain intensity, and AEs.

RESULTS

A total of 167 articles were identified from the databases. Finally seven studies with 3217 patients were included in our meta-analysis, including 1322 patients in OXN PR treatment groups and 1885 patients in prolonged-release oxycodone (OXY PR) or prolonged-release morphine (MOR PR) control group. The relative risk (RR) of OIC was decreased in OXN PR (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.44; 0.62). Whether BFI was better or worse at baseline, the mean difference (MD) of BFI -17.48 95% CI -21.60; -13.36) was better after treatment with OXN PR with clinical importance at the end of intervention; moreover, the BFI of the OXN PR-treated group was closer to normal BFI scores. However, clinical BFI change from baseline to the end measurement only existed in patients when the baseline BFI was high (mean [SDs] 61.0 [23.39]-67.40 [19.51]), and the MD of the BFI was -15.96 (95% CI -25.56; -15.48). The RR of AEs was also smaller (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.69-0.93), but the severity or duration of AEs was not reported. Pain intensity was also significantly decreased in the OXN PR treatment groups (MD -3.84, 95% CI -7.14; -0.55), although there was no clinically meaningful difference.

CONCLUSION

For people with chronic pain, treatment with OXN PR decreases the incidence of OIC and provides intermediate-term bowel function improvement with clinical importance; in addition, pain relief is not weakened. The OIC after treatment with OXN PR for cancer-related pain and over the long term remains unknown.

Tapentadol versus tramadol in the management of low back pain in the emergency department: Impact of use on the need for reassessments

Nontraumatic musculoskeletal disorders are the main reason for presentation to the emergency department (ED), with rachialgia (back pain) being the most common reason to request medical assessment among them. This also generates the highest demand for reassessments due to poor pain control or onset of adverse reactions to the treatment prescribed in the initial assessment.A retrospective observational study based on usual clinical practice was conducted in patients attending the ED due to low back pain during a period of 24 months. The primary objective was to determine the demand for reassessments in the ED by these patients in the following 30 days, according to the type of therapeutic approach used in the initial assessment.A total of 732 patients who requested medical assessment due to back pain in the ED of our hospital were analyzed, 91 of whom were treated with tapentadol whereas 641 received another treatment. In the first month after the initial assessment, reassessments were less common in the tapentadol group; this difference was significant from days 8 to 15 (P = 0.001, odds ratio [OR] 0.252 with 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.100-0.635) and days 15 to 30 (P < 10, OR 0.277 with 95% CI 0.136-0.563). Patients who received tapentadol also had a better clinical evolution of pain compared to those who did not receive it (P < 10) and to those who received tramadol (P < 10).In this study in patients with back pain, tapentadol shows clear advantages over the other analgesics analyzed, in terms of pain control and less need for reassessments.

Predictors of Outcome in Conservative and Minimally Invasive Surgical Management of Pain Originating From the Sacroiliac Joint: A Pooled Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

A pooled patient-level analysis of two multicenter randomized controlled trials and one multicenter single-arm prospective trial.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to identify predictors of outcome of conservative and minimally invasive surgical management of pain originating from the sacroiliac joint (SIJ).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Three recently published prospective trials have shown that minimally invasive SIJ fusion (SIJF) using triangular titanium implants produces better outcomes than conservative management for patients with pain originating from the SIJ. Due to limitations in individual trial sample size, analyses of predictors of treatment outcome were not conducted.

METHODS

We pooled individual patient data from the three trials and used random effects models with multivariate regression analysis to identify predictors for treatment outcome separately for conservative and minimally invasive surgical treatment. Outcome was measured using visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and EuroQOL-5D (EQ-5D).

RESULTS

We included 423 patients assigned to either nonsurgical management (NSM, n = 97) or SIJF (n = 326) between 2013 and 2015. The reduction in SIJ pain was 37.9 points larger [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 32.5-43.4, P < 0.0001] in the SIJF group than in the NSM group. Similarly, the improvement in ODI was 18.3 points larger (95% CI 14.3-22.4), P < 0.0001). In NSM, we found no predictors of outcome. In SIJF, a reduced improvement in outcome was predicted by smoking (P = 0.030), opioid use (P = 0.017), lower patient age (P = 0.008), and lower duration of SIJ pain (P = 0.028).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results support the view that SIJF leads to better treatment outcome than conservative management of SIJ pain and that a higher margin of improvement can be predicted in nonsmokers, nonopioid users, and patients of increased age and with longer pain duration.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

1.

Prolonged Preoperative Opioid Therapy in Patients With Degenerative Lumbar Stenosis in a Workers' Compensation Setting

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the impact of prolonged opioid use in the preoperative treatment plan of degenerative lumbar stenosis (DLS).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Patients undergoing operative treatment for DLS with concomitant opioid use represent a clinically challenging population. The relative paucity of data on the relationship between preoperative opioid use and clinical outcomes in the workers' compensation (WC) population necessitates further study of this unique population.

METHODS

We identified 140 Ohio WC patients who underwent lumbar decompression and had received preoperative opioid prescriptions between 1993 and 2013. Our study cohorts were formed based on opioid use duration, which included short-term use (<3 months) and long-term use (>3 months). Our primary outcome was if patients were able to make a stable return to work (RTW). A multivariate regression analysis was used to determine the impact of the duration of preoperative opioid use on return to work rates. We also compared many secondary outcomes after surgery between both groups.

RESULTS

Patients on opioids less than 3 months had a significantly higher RTW rate compared with those who used opioids longer than 3 months [25/60 (42%) vs. 18/80 (23%); P = 0.01]. A logistic regression was performed to examine the effect of preoperative opioid therapy duration on RTW status. Our regression model showed that opioid use greater than 3 months remained a significant negative predictor of RTW (OR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.13-0.89; P = 0.02). Patients who remained on opioid therapy longer than 3 months cost the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation $70,979 more than patients who were on opioid therapy for less than 3 months (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Prolonged preoperative opioid use was associated with poor clinical outcomes after lumbar decompression. These results suggest that a shorter course of opioid therapy and earlier surgical intervention may improve outcomes and lower postoperative morbidity in patients with DLS.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Design, recruitment outcomes, and sample characteristics of the Strategies for Prescribing Analgesics Comparative Effectiveness (SPACE) trial

This manuscript describes the study protocol, recruitment outcomes, and baseline participant characteristics for the Strategies for Prescribing Analgesics Comparative Effectiveness (SPACE) trial. SPACE is a pragmatic randomized comparative effectiveness trial conducted in multiple VA primary care clinics within one VA health care system. The objective was to compare benefits and harms of opioid therapy versus non-opioid medication therapy over 12months among patients with moderate-to-severe chronic back pain or hip/knee osteoarthritis pain despite analgesic therapy; patients already receiving regular opioid therapy were excluded. Key design features include comparing two clinically-relevant medication interventions, pragmatic eligibility criteria, and flexible treat-to-target interventions. Screening, recruitment and study enrollment were conducted over 31months. A total of 4491 patients were contacted for eligibility screening; 53.1% were ineligible, 41.0% refused, and 5.9% enrolled. The most common reasons for ineligibility were not meeting pain location and severity criteria. The most common study-specific reasons for refusal were preference for no opioid use and preference for no pain medications. Of 265 enrolled patients, 25 withdrew before randomization. Of 240 randomized patients, 87.9% were male, 84.1% were white, and age range was 21-80years. Past-year mental health diagnoses were 28.3% depression, 17% anxiety, 9.4% PTSD, 7.9% alcohol use disorder, and 2.6% drug use disorder. In conclusion, although recruitment for this trial was challenging, characteristics of enrolled participants suggest we were successful in recruiting patients similar to those prescribed opioid therapy in usual care.

The Challenges of Treating Sciatica Pain in Older Adults

Sciatica is a debilitating condition affecting approximately 25 % of the population. Typically, the patient will complain of lower limb pain that is more severe than pain in the lower back, usually accompanied by numbness and motor weakness. Most international guidelines recommend pharmacological management for the pain relief of sciatica, including paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioid analgesics, anticonvulsants, and corticosteroids, among others. However, the evidence for most of these pharmacological options is scarce, and the majority of clinical trials exclude older patients. There is overall very limited information on the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of these medicines in older patients with sciatica. This review presents a critical appraisal of the existing evidence for the pharmacological treatment of sciatica, with a special focus on the older adult. The age-related changes in the health of older patients, as well as their impact on the response to pharmacological treatment, including polypharmacy, drug interactions, and drug-disease interactions, is also discussed.