Opiophobia, opiophilia, opioagnosia

Independent and joint contributions of physical disability and chronic pain to incident opioid use disorder and opioid overdose among Medicaid patients

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain has been extensively explored as a risk factor for opioid misuse, resulting in increased focus on opioid prescribing practices for individuals with such conditions. Physical disability sometimes co-occurs with chronic pain but may also represent an independent risk factor for opioid misuse. However, previous research has not disentangled whether disability contributes to risk independent of chronic pain.

METHODS

Here, we estimate the independent and joint adjusted associations between having a physical disability and co-occurring chronic pain condition at time of Medicaid enrollment on subsequent 18-month risk of incident opioid use disorder (OUD) and non-fatal, unintentional opioid overdose among non-elderly, adult Medicaid beneficiaries (2016-2019).

RESULTS

We find robust evidence that having a physical disability approximately doubles the risk of incident OUD or opioid overdose, and physical disability co-occurring with chronic pain increases the risks approximately sixfold as compared to having neither chronic pain nor disability. In absolute numbers, those with neither a physical disability nor chronic pain condition have a 1.8% adjusted risk of incident OUD over 18 months of follow-up, those with physical disability alone have an 2.9% incident risk, those with chronic pain alone have a 3.6% incident risk, and those with co-occurring physical disability and chronic pain have a 11.1% incident risk.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that those with a physical disability should receive increased attention from the medical and healthcare communities to reduce their risk of opioid misuse and attendant negative outcomes.

Shifting interpretations in evidence and guidance in pain and opioids research: A bibliometric analysis of a highly cited case series from 1986

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Portenoy and Foley's 1986 landmark case series 'Chronic use of opioid analgesics in non-malignant pain: report of 38 cases' has been reproached for opening the floodgates of opioid prescribing for chronic non-cancer pain and the attendant harms. This influential article has been cited over 500 times in the scientific literature over the last four decades. This study seeks to understand the impact of Portenoy and Foley's article on subsequent discussions and research about opioids.

METHODS

We conducted a multi-method bibliometric analysis of all citations of this article from 1986 through 2019 using quantitative relational and qualitative content analysis to determine how uses and interpretations of this case series and associated prescribing guidance have changed over time, in relationship to the evolution of the North American opioid crises.

RESULTS

Using time series analysis, we identified three periods with distinct interpretations and uses of the index article. In the first 'exploration' period (1986-1996), the index article was well-received by the scientific community and motivated further study of the effects of opioids. In the second 'implementation' period (1997-2003, coinciding with the release of OxyContin®), this case series was used as evidence to support widespread prescribing of opioid analgesics, even while it was recognized that long-term effects had not yet been evaluated. The third 'reassessment' period (2004-2019) focused on how opioid-related harms had been overlooked, and in many cases, these harms were directly attributed to this article.

CONCLUSION

These changes in interpretation demonstrate shifting currents of the use and mobilization of evidence regarding pain and opioids, and how these currents both impact and are impacted by clinical practices and major sociohistorical phenomena such as the opioid crisis. Researchers and clinicians must account for these shifting dynamics when developing and interpreting scientific knowledge, including in the form of clinical practice guidelines.

Spread the Word: There Are Two Opioid Crises!

Pain is associated with emotional and physical suffering that severely impacts quality of life. Many guidelines for the treatment of moderate to severe cancer pain indicate the use of opioids. For a small proportion of the global population, opioids are readily accessible, but are consequently also subject to risk of overuse and misuse. On the other hand, many regions provide limited access to licensed opioid therapeutics and patients struggle for better pain management. The use of prescription opioids for treatment of severe cancer and acute pain is well established, but opioid use in chronic non-cancer pain is controversial and not supported by the literature. The opioid crisis and the increasing overdose fatalities in some countries have resulted in a resurgence of opiophobia in these countries, but even worse, amplified opiophobia in countries with lower opioid consumption. In this narrative review, we highlight how the opioid crisis of overuse in some countries can negatively impact appropriate access to opioids elsewhere. The availability of opioids for clinical and recreational use differs between countries worldwide-this is an important factor in determining the occurrence of a 'crisis of recreational use of opioids' or a 'crisis of under-prescription of opioids' for pain management.

Opiophobia in Emergency Department Healthcare Providers: A Survey in Western Switzerland

Opiophobia contributes to oligoanalgesia in the emergency department (ED), but its definition varies, and its association to healthcare providers’ personality traits has been scantly explored. Our purpose was to study the different definitions of opiophobia and their association with two personality traits of doctors and nurses working in EDs, namely the stress from uncertainty and risk-taking. We used three online questionnaires: the ‘Attitude Towards Morphine Use’ Score (ATMS), the Stress From Uncertainty Scale (SUS) and the Risk-Taking Scale (RTS). Doctors and nurses from nine hospital EDs in francophone Switzerland were invited to participate. The ATMS score was analyzed according to demographic characteristics, SUS, and RTS. The response rate was 56%, with 57% of respondents being nurses and 63% women. Doctors, less experienced and non-indigenous participants had a significantly higher ATMS (all p ≤ 0.01). The main contributors of the ATMS were the fear of side effects and of addiction. In multivariate analysis, being a doctor, less experience and non-indigenous status were predictive of the ATMS; each point of the SUS increased the ATMS by 0.24 point. The fear of side effects and of addiction were the major contributors of opiophobia among ED healthcare providers; opiophobia was also associated with their personality traits.

Prescribers' experiences of, and attitudes to, use of morphine for palliative care at a tertiary hospital in Zambia

OBJECTIVE

To explore medical doctors' experiences of, and attitudes to, use of morphine for palliative care at a tertiary hospital in Zambia.

METHODS

A qualitative, exploratory case study was undertaken. Semi-structured interviews were used to collect data from 14 medical doctors working in the fields of oncology, pediatrics, and internal medicine at a tertiary hospital in Lusaka, Zambia, regarding their experiences and attitudes to prescribing morphine for palliative care. Thematic analysis of interview transcripts was carried out to establish common themes in the data. The study was approved by BSMS and UNZA research ethics committees.

RESULTS

All participants agreed that doctors were becoming more comfortable with the prescribing of morphine, although experiences were notably different for doctors working in oncology, compared to other departments. Themes of difficulty discussing end-of-life, poor recognition of pain, and fear of patient addiction, were more prominent in the responses of non-cancer doctors. Morphine use was generally restricted to cancer and sickle cell disease patients, with most non-cancer doctors stating that they rarely prescribe morphine for outpatient use. Training in pain management and the presence of a palliative care team were perceived to be facilitators to morphine prescribing.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there is an increased willingness to prescribe morphine, limited knowledge of pain management, especially for nonmalignant disease, underlies many of the findings in this study. Opportunity exists for professional development in pain management to further improve the acceptance and use of opioids in palliative care, especially for out-patients.

Mapping French people and health professionals' positions regarding the circumstances of morphine use to relieve cancer pain

BACKGROUND

Cancer patients suffer in part because some health professionals prescribe or administer amounts of analgesics, namely opioids, which are too small or too widely spaced to be fully effective. Patients' reluctance to use opioids for pain treatment is often mentioned as a reason not to apply the official guidelines, but very few studies have been conducted on people's attitudes about opioid use to relieve cancer pain.

METHODS

One hundred twenty lay participants and 30 health professionals (7 physicians and 23 nurses) were presented with a set of vignettes describing a terminally ill woman with cancer who is in pain. The vignettes were composed according to a four within-subject factor design: (a) level of pain reported by the patient, (b) patient's explicit request for additional administration of analgesics, (c) the physicians' final decision (e.g., to use a stronger analgesic combining paracetamol and codeine), and (d) the way the decision was made (collectively or not). Participants were asked to assess the extent to which the physician's decision was, in their view, acceptable.

RESULTS

Seven qualitatively different positions were found among participants. They were called as follows: tend to disagree with any decision (9%), increase the strength of the painkiller in any case (16%), give morphine preferentially (9%), partly depends on pain level (23%), fully depends on pain level (6%), depends on decision process and on pain level (22%), and tend not to disagree with any collective decision (25%).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, 91% of participants agreed with the use of morphine in terminally ill cancer patients when the pain level was high (score of 7) and the decision to increase the strength of the painkiller was taken collectively. This percentage dropped to 69% when the team was not involved in the decision and to 40% when the pain level was lower (score of 4). If opposition to the use of morphine exists, it is not opposition to morphine itself but opposition to the circumstances of its use.

A Systematic Content Analysis of Policy Barriers Impeding Access to Opioid Medication in Central and Eastern Europe: Results of ATOME

CONTEXT

Reliable access to opioid medication is critical to delivering effective pain management, adequate treatment of opioid dependence, and quality palliative care. However, more than 80% of the world population is estimated to be inadequately treated for pain because of difficulties in accessing opioids. Although barriers to opioid access are primarily associated with restrictive laws, regulations, and licensing requirements, a key problem that significantly limits opioid access relates to policy constraints.

OBJECTIVES

To identify and explore policy barriers to opioid access in 12 Eastern and Central European countries involved in the Access to Opioid Medication in Europe project, funded by the European Community's Seventh Framework (FP7/2007-2013, no. 222994) Programme.

METHODS

A systematic content analysis of texts retrieved from documents (e.g., protocols of national problem analyses, strategic planning worksheets, and executive summaries) compiled, reviewed, approved, and submitted by either the Access to Opioid Medication in Europe consortium or the national country teams (comprising experts in pain management, harm reduction, and palliative care) between September 2011 and April 2014 was performed.

RESULTS

Twenty-five policy barriers were identified (e.g., economic crisis, bureaucratic issues, lack of training initiatives, stigma, and discrimination), classified under four predetermined categories (financial/economic aspects and governmental support, formularies, education and training, and societal attitudes). Key barriers related to issues of funding allocation, affordability, knowledge, and fears associated with opioids.

CONCLUSION

Reducing barriers and improving access to opioids require policy reform at the governmental level with a set of action plans being formulated and concurrently implemented and aimed at different levels of social, education, and economic policy change.

Psychometric evaluation of the French version of the questionnaire attitudes towards morphine use; a cross-sectional study in Valais, Switzerland

Background

In Switzerland, nurses are allowed to prescribe and administer morphine in emergency situations without a doctor. Still, nurses and other health professionals are often reluctant to prescribe and administer morphine for pain management in patients. No valid French-speaking instrument is available in Switzerland to assess the attitudes of nurses and other health professionals towards the prescription and administration of morphine. In this study, we evaluated the psychometric properties of the French version of the questionnaire “Attitudes towards morphine use”.

Methods

The instrument was derived from an Italian version. Forward and back translations of the questionnaire were performed. Item analysis and construct validity were assessed between April and December 2010 in a cross sectional study including five Swiss hospitals in a sample of 588 health professionals (533 nurses, mean age 38.3 ± 10.2 years). Thirty subjects participated in test-retest reliability.

Results

The time to complete the instrument ranged between 12 and 15 minutes and neither floor nor ceiling effect were found. The initial 24-item instrument showed an intraclass correlation (ICC) of 0.69 (95% CI: 0.64 to 0.73, P < 0.001), and a Cronbach’s α of 0.700. Factor analysis led to a six-component solution explaining 52.4% of the total variance. After excluding five items, the shortened version showed an ICC of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.70 to 0.77, P < 0.001) and a Cronbach’s α of 0.741. Factor analysis led to a five-component solution explaining 54.3% of the total variance. The five components were named “risk of addiction/dependence”; “operational reasons for not using morphine”; “risk of escalation”; “other (non-dependence) risks” and “external (non-operational) reasons”. In test-retest, the shortened instrument showed an ICC of 0.797 (95% CI, 0.630 to 0.911, P < 0.001) and a Cronbach’s α of 0.797.

Conclusions

The 19-item shortened instrument assessing attitudes towards the prescription and administration of morphine showed adequate content and construct validity.

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.

MMPI disability profile is associated with degree of opioid use in chronic work-related musculoskeletal disorders

OBJECTIVE

To examine the relationship between level of opioid use and Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) findings among chronic pain patients who were about to begin a functional restoration program.

METHODS

A prospective cohort study of patients with chronic disabling occupational musculoskeletal disorders. A total of 768 consecutive patients with valid MMPI were divided into 2 groups: 398 patients who reported no opioid use upon admission (No); and 370 patients who reported opioid use upon admission (Yes). Average daily opioid doses (in morphine equivalents) could be determined for 287 of 370 patients, who were further divided into 4 opioid subgroups: Low (>0 to 30 mg, n=148); Medium (>30 to 60 mg, n=57); High (>60 to 120 mg, n=47); and Very High (>120 mg, n=35).

RESULTS

Seventy-five percent of the patients who produced valid MMPI profiles could be classified into 1 of the 4 MMPI profiles. Of those patients who could be classified, approximately 7% showed a Normal profile, 15% showed a Conversion V, 9% showed a Neurotic Triad, and 69% showed the Disability Profile. Although the Disability Profile accounted for the majority of patients in all opioid subgroups, the proportions did increase with pretreatment opioid dose, as expected, indicating a relationship between degree of psychopathology and level of pretreatment opioid use. Patients who did not take pretreatment opioids showed the highest proportions of Conversion V and Normal profiles, which indicate a lesser degree or absence of psychopathology, respectively. Patients who took pretreatment opioids were more than one-and-a-half times as likely as patients who did not take pretreatment opioids to produce the Disability Profile, whereas patients taking very high doses of pretreatment opioids were nearly 3 times as likely to produce this profile as patients who took no pretreatment opioids.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study support the hypothesis that increasing levels of pretreatment opioid use is associated with less desirable MMPI profiles, specifically the Disability Profile and, thus, greater levels of pretreatment psychopathology.

Higher opioid doses predict poorer functional outcome in patients with chronic disabling occupational musculoskeletal disorders

BACKGROUND

Opioids are frequently used for the postoperative treatment of chronic disabling occupational musculoskeletal disorders. In many such cases, long-term opioid use persists because of patient requests for ongoing pain relief. Little is known about the relationship between chronic opioid use and functional recovery in these patients.

METHODS

A total of 1226 patients with a chronic disabling occupational musculoskeletal disorder were consecutively admitted into an interdisciplinary functional restoration program. They were divided into two groups: 630 patients who reported no opioid use at the time of admission (No group) and 596 patients who reported some opioid use at the time of admission (Yes group). The 516 patients for whom daily opioid doses could be determined were further divided into four subgroups: Low (<30 mg, n=267), Medium (31 to 60 mg, n=112), High (61 to 120 mg, n=78), and Very High (>120 mg, n=59). During the initial weeks of treatment, patients consented to be weaned from all opioid medications. In addition, the patients were assessed before and after rehabilitation with regard to self-reported measures of pain, function, and depression and were analyzed for change. One year after the termination of treatment, socioeconomic outcomes were assessed to measure work and financial status, healthcare utilization, and recurrent injury-associated pain.

RESULTS

A higher post-injury opioid dose was associated with a greater risk of program noncompletion, which was anticipated because of the requirement that patients taper opioids. High opioid use was significantly related to important socioeconomic outcomes, such as lower rates of return to work and work retention as well as higher healthcare utilization (p<or=0.05 for all). Moreover, at one year after treatment, the group reporting the highest opioid use was 11.6 times as likely to be receiving Social Security Disability Income/Supplemental Security Income as compared with the group reporting no opioid use at the time of admission into the program.

CONCLUSIONS

Chronic opioid use beginning after a work-related injury is a predictor of less successful outcomes for patients whose final treatment intervention is an interdisciplinary functional restoration program. Higher dose levels are associated with progressively greater indemnity and medical costs for ongoing disability. Physicians involved in the treatment of chronic disabling occupational musculoskeletal disorders should be aware of problems associated with permitting long-term opioid use in patients with a disabling occupational disorder.