State medical board members' beliefs about pain, addiction, and diversion and abuse: a changing regulatory environment

Testing the Decision Support Tool for Responsible Pain Management for Headache and Facial Pain Diagnosis with Opioid-Risk-Stratified Treatment

In primary and urgent care, headache and facial pain are common and challenging to diagnose and manage, especially with using opioids appropriately. We therefore developed the Decision Support Tool for Responsible Pain Management (DS-RPM) to assist healthcare providers in diagnosis (including multiple simultaneous diagnoses), workup (including triage), and opioid-risk-informed treatment. A primary goal was to supply sufficient explanations of DS-RPM's functions allowing critique. We describe the process of iteratively designing DS-RPM adding clinical content and testing/defect discovery. We tested DS-RPM remotely with 21 clinician-participants using three vignettes-cluster headache, migraine, and temporal arteritis-after first training to use DS-RPM with a trigeminal-neuralgia vignette. Their evaluation was both quantitative (usability/acceptability) and qualitative using semi-structured interviews. The quantitative evaluation used 12 Likert-type questions on a 1-5 scale, where 5 represented the highest rating. The mean ratings ranged from 4.48 to 4.95 (SDs ranging 0.22-1.03). Participants initially found structured data entry intimidating but adapted and appreciated its comprehensiveness and speed of data capture. They perceived DS-RPM as useful for teaching and clinical practice, making several enhancement suggestions. The DS-RPM was designed, created, and tested to facilitate best practice in management of patients with headaches and facial pain. Testing the DS-RPM with vignettes showed strong functionality and high usability/acceptability ratings from healthcare providers. Risk stratifying for opioid use disorder to develop a treatment plan for headache and facial pain is possible using vignettes. During testing, we considered the need to adapt usability/acceptability evaluation tools for clinical decision support, and future directions.

Barriers and Adherence to Pain Management in Advanced Cancer Patients

AIM

To assess patients' barriers to pain management and analgesic medication adherence in patients with advanced cancer.

METHODS

This was a prospective cross-sectional study in patients with advanced cancer receiving chronic opioid therapy. Age, gender, cancer diagnosis, Karnofsky level, and educational status were recorded. The Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS), Barriers Questionnaire II (BQ-II), Medication Adherence Rating Scale (MARS), and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) were the measurement instruments used.

RESULTS

One-hundred-thirteen patients were analyzed. The mean age was 68 (±13) years, and 59 (52%) were male. The mean Karnofsky status was 51.4 (standard deviation [SD] 11.5). The mean score for BQ-II items was 1.77 (SD 0.7). The BQ-II score was independently related to the HADS-Depression score (P = 0.033) and the total HADS score (P = 0.049). Negative side-effects and attitudes toward psychotropic medication globally prevailed among MARS items. These items were independently associated with gender (P = 0.030), pain (P = 0.003), and depression (P = 0.047).

CONCLUSION

Barriers to pain management were mild. Psychological factors such as depression were the main factor associated with barriers. Poor adherence to analgesic medication was mostly manifested as negative side-effects and attitudes toward psychotropic medication, was more frequent observed in females, and was associated with the ESAS items pain and depression.

A proposed nationwide reporting system to satisfy the ethical obligation to prevent drug diversion-related transmission of hepatitis C in healthcare facilities

In 2012, dozens of patients of Exeter Hospital in New Hampshire contracted new hepatitis C infections that were tracked back to a cardiac technician who ultimately confessed to drug diversion. A multistate epidemiological investigation of hepatitis C cases occurring in multiple hospitals revealed that the technician had been fired from prior institutions due to similar drug diversion activity, about which Exeter Hospital had not been notified. In this article, we highlight the institutional ethical issues raised by this outbreak, and propose a national centralized reporting system to support institutional fulfillment of the ethical obligation to protect the health of patients by preventing such nosocomial outbreaks.

Development of the KnowPain-12 pain management knowledge survey

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to develop a brief knowledge survey about chronic noncancer pain that could be used as a reliable and valid measure of a provider's pain management knowledge.

METHODS

This study used a cross-sectional study design. A group of pain experts used a systematic consensus approach to reduce the previously validated KnowPain-50 to 12 questions (2 items per original 6 domains). A purposive sampling of pain specialists and health professionals generated from public lists and pain societies was invited to complete the KnowPain-12 online survey. Between April 4 and September 16, 2012, 846 respondents completed the survey.

RESULTS

Respondents included registered nurses (34%), physicians (23%), advanced practice registered nurses (14%), and other allied health professionals and students. Twenty-six percent of the total sample self-identified as "pain specialist." Pain specialists selected the most correct response to the knowledge assessment items more often than did those who did not identify as pain specialists, with the exception of 1 item. KnowPain-12 demonstrated adequate internal consistency reliability (α=0.67). Total scores across all 12 items were significantly higher (P<0.0001) among pain specialists compared with respondents who did not self-identify as pain specialists.

DISCUSSION

The psychometric properties of the KnowPain-12 support its potential as an instrument for measuring provider pain management knowledge. The ability to assess pain management knowledge with a brief measure will be useful for developing future research studies and specific pain management knowledge intervention approaches for health care providers.

Prescription opioid abuse and tampering in the United States: results of a self-report survey

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to estimate the prevalence and impact of prescription opioid abuse and tampering among US adults.

METHODS

Participants from the US National Health and Wellness Survey were invited to complete an online survey assessing use, misuse, and abuse of prescription opioid medications in the preceding 3 months. A total of 25,864 adults were screened for self-reported opioid abuse. Prevalence was calculated using weights based on age, gender, race, and education. Respondents reporting abuse or medical use of prescription opioid medication in the prior 3 months (N = 1,242) completed a questionnaire assessing health care resource use and the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire.

RESULTS

The prevalence of prescription opioid abuse in the 3 months prior to the survey was estimated at 1.31% of US adults, with approximately half (0.67%) tampering during that time. Opioid abuse increased with younger age, male sex, minority race, psychiatric illness, alcoholism, cigarette smoking, being employed, and higher household income. Respondents abusing opioid medications reported greater impairment in work and nonwork activities and more health care use than nonusers. Tampering with opioid medication was associated with greater productivity loss and increased use of health care (all P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Tampering with opioid medications to get high is associated with substantial loss of productivity and health care use. Technologies that reduce users' ability to tamper may reduce the burden of opioid abuse on the health care system.

Changes in trends and pattern of strong opioid prescribing in primary care

Background

This study evaluated the prescribing trends of four commonly prescribed strong opioids in primary care and explored utilization in non-cancer and cancer users.

Methods

This cross-sectional study was conducted from 2000 to 2010 using the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Prescriptions of buprenorphine, fentanyl, morphine and oxycodone issued to adult patients were included in this study. Opioid prescriptions issued after patients had cancer medical codes were defined as cancer-related use; otherwise, they were considered non-cancer use. Annual number of prescriptions and patients, defined daily dose (DDD/1000 inhabitants/day) and oral morphine equivalent (OMEQ) dose were measured in repeat cross-sectional estimates.

Results

In total, there were 2,672,022 prescriptions (87.8% for non-cancer) of strong opioids for 178,692 users (59.9% female, 83.9% non-cancer, mean age 67.1 ± 17.0 years) during the study period. The mean annual (DDD/1000 inhabitants/day) was higher in the non-cancer group than in the cancer group for all four opioids; morphine (0.73 ± 0.28 vs. 0.12 ± 0.04), fentanyl (0.46 ± 0.29 vs. 0.06 ± 0.24), oxycodone (0.24 ± 0.19 vs. 0.038 ± 0.028) and buprenorphine (0.23 ± 0.15 vs. 0.008 ± 0.006). The highest proportion of patients were prescribed low opioid doses (OMEQ ≤ 50 mg/day) in both non-cancer (50.3%) and cancer (39.9%) groups, followed by the dose ranks of 51–100 mg/day (26.2% vs. 28.7%), 101–200 mg/day (15.1% vs. 19.2%) and >200 mg/day (8.25% vs. 12.1%).

Conclusions

There has been a huge increase in strong opioid prescribing in the United Kingdom, with the majority of prescriptions for non-cancer pain. Morphine was the most frequently prescribed, but the utilization of oxycodone, buprenorphine and fentanyl increased markedly over time.

Predictors of high score patient-reported barriers to controlling cancer pain: a preliminary report

PURPOSE

Pain is one of the most common and devastating symptoms in cancer patients, and misunderstandings on the patient's part can cause major obstacles in pain management.

METHOD

We evaluated factors associated with patient's high barrier score to managing cancer-associated pain by having 201 patients complete the Korean Barriers Questionnaire II, the Brief Pain Inventory--Korean, the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30, and the Korean Beck Depression Inventory. The Pain Management Index (PMI) was also assessed.

RESULTS

The patients were from nine oncology clinics in university hospitals and a veterans' hospital in South Korea. The median pain score (0-10 scale) was 4, with a median percentage of pain improvement during the last 24 h of 70 %. A total of 150 patients (75 %) received strong opioids, and 177 (88 %) achieved adequate analgesia (positive PMI). Mean scores ± SD for the Barriers Questionnaire II ranged from 1.5 ± 1 to 2.8 ± 1.1, with the harmful effects subscale the highest. In the multiple regression model, depression was significantly associated with total barrier score to pain management (p < 0.0001). Pain reduction was significantly associated with the fatalism subscale.

CONCLUSIONS

Depression was associated with high barrier score in patients with cancer pain. Management of cancer pain should include screening for depression, and management of depression could reduce patient-reported barriers to pain management.

Opioid rotation in clinical practice

INTRODUCTION

Although chronic opioid therapy is usually initiated using short-acting opioids, many patients with chronic pain are subsequently converted to long-acting and extended-release preparations. In clinical practice, optimal management requires careful individualization of dosage in order to achieve an appropriate balance of efficacy and adverse effects. After successful initiation and stabilization of opioid treatment, subsequent changes in regimen may still be required to maintain efficacy with an acceptable adverse effect profile.

METHODS

This is a qualitative review of the available literature from June 2012 or earlier on opioid rotation for the management of chronic pain in the clinical setting. The PubMed database was searched using various search terms, and additional articles were identified through manual search of the bibliographies of articles identified through the PubMed search. Papers were selected based on relevance to the topic.

RESULTS

When considering opioid rotation, clinicians must take into account not only the significant differences in potency among opioid drugs but also the considerable interpatient variability in response to opioids. The estimate of relative potency used in calculating an appropriate starting dose when switching from one opioid to another has been codified on equianalgesic dose tables. To reduce the risk of unintentional overdose, a two-step calculation has been proposed, which incorporates an initial reduction (typically 25-50%) in the equianalgesic dose followed by a second evaluation based on the severity of pain at the time of rotation along with other medical or psychosocial factors that might alter the effectiveness and tolerability of the new drug. Given the uncertainty of accurately predicting a patient's response to treatment, each initial exposure to a new opioid should be considered a discrete clinical trial to assess the degree of response. Systematic reviews of opioid rotation have documented the re-establishment of adequate pain control or reduced adverse effects in 50-80% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Although continued research is needed to refine equianalgesic doses further, opioid rotation is an important and necessary practice in patients with chronic cancer or noncancer pain that is refractory to the initially used opioid.

Police officer, deal-maker, or health care provider? Moving to a patient-centered framework for chronic opioid management

How we frame our thoughts about chronic opioid therapy greatly influences our ability to practice patient-centered care. Even providers who strive to be nonjudgmental may approach clinical decision-making about opioids by considering if the pain is real or they can trust the patient. Not only does this framework potentially lead to poor or unshared decision-making, it likely adds to provider and patient discomfort by placing the provider in the position of a police officer or a judge. Similarly, providers often find themselves making deals with patients using a positional bargaining approach. Even if a compromise is reached, this framework can potentially inadvertently weaken the therapeutic relationship by encouraging the idea that the patient and provider have opposing goals. Reframing the issue can allow the provider to be in a more therapeutic role. As recommended in the American Pain Society/American Academy of Pain Medicine guidelines, providers should decide whether the benefits of opioid therapy are likely to outweigh the harms for a specific patient (or sometimes, for society) at a specific time. This article discusses how providers can use a benefit-to-harm framework to make and communicate decisions about the initiation, continuation, and discontinuation of opioids for managing chronic nonmalignant pain. Such an approach focuses decisions and discussions on judging the treatment, not the patient. It allows the provider and the patient to ally together and make shared decisions regarding a common goal. Moving to a risk-benefit framework may allow providers to provide more patient-centered care, while also increasing provider and patient comfort with adequately monitoring for harm.

Attitude and knowledge of physicians about cancer pain management: young doctors of South Korea in their early career

OBJECTIVE

This study is aimed at evaluating the attitude and knowledge about the optimal use of opioids and finding out the barriers to cancer pain management especially for young doctors in South Korea.

METHODS

A survey through questionnaire form was conducted on 1204 physicians. Physicians were grouped by their medical specialties and personal characteristics. Specialties were grouped into internal medicine and family medicine doctors, surgeons, anesthesiologists, pediatricians, other board holders and general physicians. Personal characteristics were grouped by their past experiences and current surroundings.

RESULTS

Though many doctors thought that they were fairly well educated for pain management strategy, a large population of physicians showed a negative attitude and inadequate knowledge status about cancer pain management. The degree of attitude and knowledge status was different as their specialties and personal experiences. The factors that affected doctors' attitude and knowledge were: (i) medical specialty, (ii) past history of using practical pain assessment tool, (iii) self-perception of knowledge status about pain management, (iv) experience of prescribing opioids, (v) experience of education for cancer pain management. Although many physicians had a passive attitude in prescribing opioid analgesics, they are willingly open to use opioids for cancer pain management in the future. The most important perceived barriers to optimal cancer pain management were the fear for risk of tolerance, drug addiction, side effects of opioid analgesics and knowledge deficit about opioid analgesics.

CONCLUSIONS

From this study, we found that further education and practical training will be needed for adequate cancer pain management for young physicians in their early career.

Computerized progress notes for chronic pain patients receiving opioids; the Prescription Opioid Documentation System (PODS)

OBJECTIVE

We herein provide a description of a health information technology tool using computer-assisted survey instruments as a methodology for documentation during long-term opioid therapy.

DESIGN

We report our experience using the Prescription Opioid Documentation and Surveillance (PODS) System, a medical informatics tool that utilizes validated questionnaires to automate the assessment of opioid prescribing for chronic nonmalignant pain.

SETTING AND PATIENTS

Chronic pain patients answered questions that were presented on a computer terminal prior to each appointment in a Department of Veterans Affairs Pain Clinic.

MEASURES

Pain levels, activities of daily living, and screening for common psychological disorders were sought at each visit. Results were tabulated with some information gathered sequentially permitting evaluation of progress. Following a face-to-face interview, the clinician added additional comments to the medical record.

RESULTS

By deploying a systematic series of questions that are recalled by the computer, PODS assures a comprehensive assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

The PODS fulfills medicolegal requirements for documentation and provides a systematic means of determining outcomes. This process facilitates the determination of the appropriate intervals between clinic visits by stratifying patients into high, moderate, and low risk.

State medical board members' attitudes about the legality of chronic prescribing to patients with noncancer pain: the influence of knowledge and beliefs about pain management, addiction, and opioid prescribing

CONTEXT

In the United States, physicians' practice is regulated at the state level, with medical board members distinguishing legitimate medical practice from unprofessional conduct. For this process to be effective, regulators should have knowledge and beliefs that conform to current standards of practice and medical understanding. Past research has demonstrated that some board members continue to view the prolonged prescribing of opioid analgesics to treat noncancer pain as being unlawful or unacceptable medical practice, especially when the patient with pain has a history of substance abuse.

OBJECTIVES

This study was designed to determine whether relevant clinical or policy issues can adequately explain regulators' attitudes about the legality of opioid prescribing for patients with noncancer pain.

METHODS

A total of 277 questionnaires were obtained from a national sample of medical board members. Using binomial logistic regression procedures, the predictive significance of 12 factors related to four variable domains was explored: 1) beliefs about opioid addiction and diversion, 2) beliefs and knowledge about federal and state policy, 3) clinical beliefs about opioid prescribing, and 4) demographic characteristics.

RESULTS

Separate logistic regression models were computed to determine the extent that knowledge and beliefs contribute to attitudes about the legality of chronic opioid therapy for noncancer pain and for noncancer pain with a history of substance abuse. Three variables demonstrated statistical significance in both regression models: 1) characterizing addiction in terms of physiological phenomena, 2) believing regulatory policy is useful to improve pain relief, and 3) incorrectly believing that federal law limits the amount of Schedule II medication that can be prescribed at one time. When considering the legality of prescribing opioids for patients with noncancer pain, the following additional factors had a notable influence: viewing addiction as common when treating pain with opioids (P=0.030), considering it very important for a board to have a regulatory policy about pain treatment (P=0.038), doubting the legitimacy of more than one opioid prescription for a single patient (P<0.0001), and being younger (P=0.038). Alternatively, for patients with noncancer pain and a history of abuse, only one other factor was significant: reporting the adequacy of their training in pain management as "poor" (P=0.012).

CONCLUSION

Study results showed that the parsimonious regression models used in this study reasonably explained such attitudes. Suggestions were offered for achieving more comprehensive insight about the factors that can shape regulators' attitudes about prescribing legality.

Opioid pharmacotherapy for chronic non-cancer pain in the United States: a research guideline for developing an evidence-base

This document reports the consensus of an interdisciplinary panel of research and clinical experts charged with reviewing the use of opioids for chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) and formulating guidelines for future research. Prescribing opioids for chronic noncancer pain has recently escalated in the United States. Contrasting with increasing opioid use are: 1) The lack of evidence supporting long-term effectiveness; 2) Escalating misuse of prescription opioids including abuse and diversion; and 3) Uncertainty about the incidence and clinical salience of multiple, poorly characterized adverse drug events (ADEs) including endocrine dysfunction, immunosuppression and infectious disease, opioid-induced hyperalgesia and xerostomia, overdose, falls and fractures, and psychosocial complications. Chief among the limitations of current evidence are: 1) Sparse evidence on long-term opioid effectiveness in chronic pain patients due to the short-term time frame of clinical trials; 2) Insufficiently comprehensive outcome assessment; and 3) Incomplete identification and quantification of ADEs. The panel called for a strategic interdisciplinary approach to the problem domain in which basic scientists and clinicians cooperate to resolve urgent issues and generate a comprehensive evidence base. It offered 4 recommendations in 3 areas: 1) A research strategy for studying the effectiveness of long-term opioid pharmacotherapy; 2) Improvements in evidence-generation methodology; and 3) Potential research topics for generating new evidence.

PERSPECTIVE

Prescribing opioids for CNCP has outpaced the growth of scientific evidence bearing on the benefits and harms of these interventions. The need for a strong evidence base is urgent. This guideline offers a strategic approach to creating a comprehensive evidence base to guide safe and effective management of CNCP.

Morphinofobia: the situation among the general population and health care professionals in North-Eastern Portugal

Background

Morphinofobia among the general population (GP) and among health care professionals (HP) is not without danger for the patients: it may lead to the inappropriate management of debilitating pain. The aim of our study was to explore among GP and HP the representation and attitudes concerning the use of morphine in health care.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was done among 412 HP (physicians and nurses) of the 4 hospitals and 10 community health centers of Beira Interior (Portugal)and among 193 persons of the GP randomly selected in public places. Opinions were collected through a translated self-administered questionnaire.

Results

A significant difference of opinion exists among GP and HP about the use of morphine. The word morphine first suggests drug to GP (36,2%) and analgesia to HP (32,9%.). The reasons for not using morphine most frequently cited are: for GP morphine use means advanced disease (56%), risk of addiction (50%), legal requirements (49,7%); for HP it means legal risks (56,3%) and adverse side effects of morphine such as somnolence - sedation (30,5%) The socio-demographic situation was correlated with the opinions about the use of morphine.

Conclusions

False beliefs about the use of morphine exist among the studied groups. There seems to be a need for developing information campaigns on pain management and the use of morphine targeting. Better training and more information of HP might also be needed.

The concept of addiction in law and regulatory policy related to pain management: a critical review

OBJECTIVE

To present a critical appraisal of the present definitions of addiction-related terminology that appear in US laws and regulatory policies that apply to the prescription of controlled substances for pain management.

METHODS

To establish an appropriate context for existing policy definitions, a historical review was conducted of reports from the World Health Organization expert committees on addiction-related concepts, beginning in 1950. In addition, current World Health Organization and American Psychiatric Association diagnostic classification nomenclature were examined. Results from recent criteria-based evaluations of federal and state laws and regulatory policies containing addiction-related terminology also were referenced.

RESULTS

Numerous examples are provided to clarify how inaccurate understandings of the nature of addiction, which can be corroborated by archaic definitions in some states' laws, can impact treatment decisions and patient care. Finally, this article discusses terminological and treatment implications of such concepts as "risk mitigation" and "responsible prescribing", which are goals currently emphasized in the pain management field as principal means to reduce addiction to or abuse of prescription opioid medications.

DISCUSSION

Although notable improvement has been achieved, policy content in some states has not kept pace with advancements in medical and scientific knowledge about the interface between pain management and addictive disease. Effective translation of addiction-related concepts into clinical practice remains an important objective for promoting public health related to treating pain and reducing non-medical use of opioids.

Trends in long-term opioid therapy for chronic non-cancer pain

OBJECTIVE

To report trends and characteristics of long-term opioid use for non-cancer pain.

METHODS

CONSORT (CONsortium to Study Opioid Risks and Trends) includes adult enrollees of two health plans serving over 1 per cent of the US population. Using automated data, we constructed episodes of opioid use between 1997 and 2005. We estimated age-sex standardized rates of opioid use episodes beginning in each year (incident) and on-going in each year (prevalent), and the per cent change in rates annualized (PCA) over the 9-year period. Long-term episodes were defined as > 90 days with 120+ days supply or 10+ opioid prescriptions in a given year.

RESULTS

Over the study period, incident long-term use increased from 8.5 to 12.1 per 1000 at Group Health (GH) (6.0% PCA), and 6.3 to 8.6 per 1000 at Kaiser Permanente of Northern California (KPNC) (5.5% PCA). Prevalent long-term use doubled from 23.9 to 46.8 per 1000 at GH (8.5% PCA), and 21.5 to 39.2 per 1000 at KPNC (8.1% PCA). Non-Schedule II opioids were the most commonly used opioid among patients engaged in long-term opioid therapy, particularly at KPNC. Long-term use of Schedule II opioids also increased substantially at both health plans. Among prevalent long-term users in 2005, 28.6% at GH and 30.2% at KPNC were also regular users of sedative hypnotics.

CONCLUSION

Long-term opioid therapy for non-cancer pain is increasingly prevalent, but the benefits and risks associated with such therapy are inadequately understood. Concurrent use of opioids and sedative-hypnotics was unexpectedly common and deserves further study.

Problems of quality and equity in pain management: exploring the role of biomedical culture

OBJECTIVES

To explore how social scientific analyses of the culture of biomedicine may contribute to advancing our understanding of ongoing issues of quality and equity in pain management.

DESIGN

Drawing upon the rich body of social scientific literature on the culture of biomedicine, we identify key features of biomedical culture with particular salience for pain management. We then examine how these cultural features of biomedicine may shape key phases of the pain management process in ways that have implications not just for quality, but for equity in pain management as well.

SETTING AND PATIENTS

We bring together a range of literatures in developing our analysis, including literatures on the culture of biomedicine, pain management and health care disparities.

MEASURES

We surveyed the relevant literatures to identify and inter-relate key features of biomedical culture, key phases of the pain management process, and key dimensions of identified problems with suboptimal and inequitable treatment of pain.

RESULTS

We identified three key features of biomedical culture with critical implications for pain management: 1) mind-body dualism; 2) a focus on disease vs illness; and 3) a bias toward cure vs care. Each of these cultural features play a role in the key phases of pain management, specifically pain-related communication, assessment and treatment decision-making, in ways that may hinder successful treatment of pain in general -- and of pain patients from disadvantaged groups in particular.

CONCLUSIONS

Deepening our understanding of the role of biomedical culture in pain management has implications for education, policy and research as part of ongoing efforts to ameliorate problems in both quality and equity in managing pain. In particular, we suggest that building upon the existing the cultural competence movement in medicine to include fostering a deeper understanding of biomedical culture and its impact on physicians may be useful. From a policy perspective, we identify pain management as an area where the need for a shift to a more biopsychosocial model of health care is particularly pressing, and suggest prioritization of inter-disciplinary, multimodal approaches to pain as one key strategy in realizing this shift. Finally, in terms of research, we identify the need for empirical research to assess aspects of biomedical culture that may influence physician's attitudes and behaviors related to pain management, as well as to explore how these cultural values and their effects may vary across different settings within the practice of medicine.

Opioid analgesics for pain control: wisconsin physicians' knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, and prescribing practices

OBJECTIVE

Opioid analgesics are the drugs of choice for the treatment of moderate to severe acute and cancer pain. Although their role in the management of chronic pain not related to cancer is controversial, there is increasing evidence for their benefit in certain patient populations.

DESIGN

A 32-item survey to assess Wisconsin physicians' knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes toward opioid analgesic use was mailed to 600 randomly selected licensed physicians, resulting in a 36% response rate.

RESULTS

Half of the respondents considered diversion a moderate or severe problem in Wisconsin. A majority considered addiction to be a combination of physiological and behavioral characteristics, rather than defining it solely as a behavioral syndrome. Most physicians felt it lawful and acceptable medical practice to prescribe opioids for chronic cancer pain, but only half held this view if the pain was not related to cancer. Fewer physicians considered such prescribing as lawful and generally accepted medical practice if the patient had a history of substance abuse. About two-thirds of physicians were not concerned about being investigated for their opioid prescribing practices, but some admitted that fear of investigation led them to lower the dose prescribed, limit the number of refills, or prescribe a Schedule III or IV rather than a Schedule II opioid.

CONCLUSION

Wisconsin physicians who responded to this survey held many misconceptions about the prescribing of opioids. Such views, coupled with a lack of knowledge about laws and regulations governing the prescribing of controlled substances, may result in inadequate prescribing of opioids with resultant inadequate management of pain.

Age and sex trends in long-term opioid use in two large American health systems between 2000 and 2005

OBJECTIVE

To estimate recent age- and sex-specific changes in long-term opioid prescription among patients with chronic pain in two large American Health Systems.

DESIGN

Analysis of administrative pharmacy data to calculate changes in prevalence of long-term opioid prescription (90 days or more during a calendar year) from 2000 to 2005, within groups based on sex and age (18-44, 45-64, and 65 years and older). Separate analyses were conducted for patients with and without a diagnosis of a mood disorder or anxiety disorder. Changes in mean dose between 2000 and 2005 were estimated, as were changes in the rate of prescription for different opioid types (short-acting, long-acting, and non-Schedule 2).

PATIENTS

Enrollees in HealthCore (N = 2,716,163 in 2000) and Arkansas Medicaid (N = 115,914 in 2000).

RESULTS

Within each of the age and sex groups, less than 10% of patients with a chronic pain diagnosis in HealthCore, and less than 33% in Arkansas Medicaid, received long-term opioid prescriptions. All age, sex, and anxiety/depression groups showed similar and statistically significant increases in long-term opioid prescription between 2000 and 2005 (35-50% increase). Per-patient daily doses did not increase.

CONCLUSIONS

No one group showed especially large increases in long-term opioid prescriptions between 2000 and 2005. These results argue against a recent epidemic of opioid prescribing. These trends may result from increased attention to pain in clinical settings, policy or economic changes, or provider and patient openness to opioid therapy. The risks and benefits to patients of these changes are not yet established.

Clinical guidelines for the use of chronic opioid therapy in chronic noncancer pain

Use of chronic opioid therapy for chronic noncancer pain has increased substantially. The American Pain Society and the American Academy of Pain Medicine commissioned a systematic review of the evidence on chronic opioid therapy for chronic noncancer pain and convened a multidisciplinary expert panel to review the evidence and formulate recommendations. Although evidence is limited, the expert panel concluded that chronic opioid therapy can be an effective therapy for carefully selected and monitored patients with chronic noncancer pain. However, opioids are also associated with potentially serious harms, including opioid-related adverse effects and outcomes related to the abuse potential of opioids. The recommendations presented in this document provide guidance on patient selection and risk stratification; informed consent and opioid management plans; initiation and titration of chronic opioid therapy; use of methadone; monitoring of patients on chronic opioid therapy; dose escalations, high-dose opioid therapy, opioid rotation, and indications for discontinuation of therapy; prevention and management of opioid-related adverse effects; driving and work safety; identifying a medical home and when to obtain consultation; management of breakthrough pain; chronic opioid therapy in pregnancy; and opioid-related policies.

PERSPECTIVE

Safe and effective chronic opioid therapy for chronic noncancer pain requires clinical skills and knowledge in both the principles of opioid prescribing and on the assessment and management of risks associated with opioid abuse, addiction, and diversion. Although evidence is limited in many areas related to use of opioids for chronic noncancer pain, this guideline provides recommendations developed by a multidisciplinary expert panel after a systematic review of the evidence.