Development and Validation of an Eight-Item Brief Form of the SOAPP-R (SOAPP-8)

Prevalence of problematic pharmaceutical opioid use in patients with chronic non-cancer pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) is one of the most common causes of disability globally. Opioid prescribing to treat CNCP remains widespread, despite limited evidence of long-term clinical benefit and evidence of harm such as problematic pharmaceutical opioid use (POU) and overdose. The study aimed to measure the prevalence of POU in CNCP patients treated with opioid analgesics.

METHOD

A comprehensive systematic literature review and meta-analysis was undertaken using MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO databases from inception to 27 January 2021. We included studies from all settings with participants aged ≥ 12 with non-cancer pain of ≥ 3 months duration, treated with opioid analgesics. We excluded case-control studies, as they cannot be used to generate prevalence estimates. POU was defined using four categories: dependence and opioid use disorder (D&OUD), signs and symptoms of D&OUD (S&S), aberrant behaviour (AB) and at risk of D&OUD. We used a random-effects multi-level meta-analytical model. We evaluated inconsistency using the I2 statistic and explored heterogeneity using subgroup analyses and meta-regressions.

RESULTS

A total of 148 studies were included with > 4.3 million participants; 1% of studies were classified as high risk of bias. The pooled prevalence was 9.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 5.7-14.8%; I2 = 99.9%] for D&OUD, 29.6% (95% CI = 22.1-38.3%, I2 = 99.3%) for S&S and 22% (95% CI = 17.4-27.3%, I2 = 99.8%) for AB. The prevalence of those at risk of D&OUD was 12.4% (95% CI = 4.3-30.7%, I2 = 99.6%). Prevalence was affected by study setting, study design and diagnostic tool. Due to the high heterogeneity, the findings should be interpreted with caution.

CONCLUSIONS

Problematic pharmaceutical opioid use appears to be common in chronic pain patients treated with opioid analgesics, with nearly one in 10 experiencing dependence and opioid use disorder, one in three showing signs and symptoms of dependence and opioid use disorder and one in five showing aberrant behaviour.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Clinical Practice Guideline for Prescribing Opioids: United States, 2022: What dentists need to know

BACKGROUND

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published the Clinical Practice Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Pain-United States, 2022 (CDCCPG) to replace the 2016 guideline. This guideline was designed to serve as a clinical tool to improve communication between clinicians and patients and empower them to make informed, person-centered decisions regarding pain management and the prescribing of opioids. It is intended for primary care and other clinicians, including dentists, who provide pain management for adults with acute, subacute, and chronic pain.

TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED

This article summarizes the CDCCPG, with an emphasis on information of relevance to dentistry.

RESULTS

For dentists, the most important recommendations for pain management are that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications are first-line medications for acute dental pain, interdisciplinary care for chronic orofacial pain is indicated, and opioids should only be prescribed for acute dental pain for a maximum of 3 days after risk assessment.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

The CDCCPG contains a great deal of relevant information that can help dentists and dental specialists make safe, effective, and evidence-based decisions in providing pain control for their patients.

Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and the Role of Psychosocial Comorbidities in Chronic Orofacial Pain

This article presents the case of a patient with persistent right-sided jaw pain with a history of multiple temporomandibular joint surgeries in the setting of persistent widespread body pain, the causes of which were fibromyalgia and osteoarthritis with multiple joint replacements, as well as psychological diagnoses of PTSD and depression. Despite extensive treatment from her orofacial pain team in combination with neurology and neurosurgery, her severe pain persisted, likely due to the consequences of untreated PTSD and depression, which led to avoidance of activities that would exacerbate her pain and thus to further disability and emotional deterioration.

Application of risk assessment tools to predict opioid usage after shoulder surgery

Background

Currently 128 people die daily from opioid-related overdoses in the United States. This burden has instigated a search for viable means to guide postoperative prescription decision-making. The Opioid Risk Tool (ORT) and the Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patient with Pain (SOAPP) are validated risk assessment tools to predict opioid usage in high-risk populations. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of these opioid risk assessments and pain intensity scores, including the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS), to predict postoperative opioid use and dependence in shoulder surgery.

Methods

A retrospective review of 81 patients who underwent shoulder surgery and completed 3 preoperative risk and pain assessments within a single hospital system from 2018 to 2020 was performed. Demographic variables and ORT-O, SOAPP-R (the revised version of the SOAPP assessment), and PROMIS 3a scores were recorded from preoperative assessments. Opioid prescriptions were recorded from Electronic-Florida Online Reporting of Controlled Substances Evaluation. Dependence was defined as opioid prescriptions at or greater than 3 months after surgery. Risk assessment scores were compared and tested against postoperative opioid prescriptions using statistical analyses and logistic regression modeling.

Results

In the cohort, there were 36 female and 45 male patients with an average age of 64.5 years and body mass index of 28.0. Preoperatively, the average pain score was 6.2, and 7.8% of patients reported prolonged preoperative narcotics use. The average ORT-O score was 3.0, with 35.8% of patients defined as either medium or high risk, and the average PROMIS pain intensity preoperatively was 10.8. Neither the ORT-O nor the PROMIS pain score were good predictors of postoperative opioid dependence (area under curve = 0.39 and 0.43, respectively). The SOAPP-R performed slightly better (area under curve = 0.70) and was the only assessment with significantly different mean scores between patients with postoperative opioid dependence and those without (33.4 and 24.5, respectively, P = .049) and a moderate correlation to postoperative total morphine equivalents (R = 0.46, P = .007).

Conclusion

With recent focus on preoperative risk assessments to predict postoperative opioid use and dependence, it is important to understand how well these tools work when applied to orthopedic patients. While the ORT may be helpful in other fields, it does not seem to be a strong predictor of postoperative opioid use or dependence in patients undergoing various types of shoulder surgery. Future studies are needed to explore the utility of the SOAPP-R in a larger sample and identify tools applicable to the orthopedic population to assist surgeons in screening at-risk patients.

Elective surgery in ankle and foot disorders-best practices for management of pain: a guideline for clinicians

PURPOSE

Complex elective foot and ankle surgeries are often associated with severe pain pre- and postoperatively. When inadequately managed, chronic postsurgical pain and long-term opioid use can result. As no standards currently exist, we aimed to develop best practice pain management guidelines.

METHODS

A local steering committee (n = 16) surveyed 116 North American foot and ankle surgeons to understand the "current state" of practice. A multidisciplinary expert panel (n = 35) was then formed consisting of orthopedic surgeons, anesthesiologists, chronic pain physicians, primary care physicians, pharmacists, registered nurses, physiotherapists, and clinical psychologists. Each expert provided up to three pain management recommendations for each of the presurgery, intraoperative, inpatient postoperative, and postdischarge periods. These preliminary recommendations were reduced, refined, and sent to the expert panel and "current state" survey respondents to create a consensus document using a Delphi process conducted from September to December 2020.

RESULTS

One thousand four hundred and five preliminary statements were summarized into 51 statements. Strong consensus (≥ 80% respondent agreement) was achieved in 53% of statements including the following: postsurgical opioid use risk should be assessed preoperatively; opioid-naïve patients should not start opioids preoperatively unless non-opioid multimodal analgesia fails; and if opioids are prescribed at discharge, patients should receive education regarding importance of tapering opioid use. There was no consensus regarding opioid weaning preoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

Using multidisciplinary experts and a Delphi process, strong consensus was achieved in many areas, showing considerable agreement despite limited evidence for standardized pain management in patients undergoing complex elective foot and ankle surgery. No consensus on important issues related to opioid prescribing and cessation highlights the need for research to determine best practice.

Pain Management in Oncology Patients Amidst the Opioid Epidemic: How To Minimize Non-Medical Opioid Use

The opioid epidemic continues to be a significant public health concern. On the surface, it appears difficult to understate the profound consequences and unnecessary loss of life at the hands of the opioid crisis throughout the 2010s. This reality should not dissuade rigorous attention toward those who have suffered unnecessarily due to an overreaching backlash toward the opioid crisis. Oncology patients have been significantly impacted on both ends of the opioid crisis. Like other populations, cancer patients were first affected during the initial surge of opioid availability, prescription, and use at the beginning of the crisis, where opioid abuse and overdose negatively impacted cancer patient populations at similar rates as the general population. Yet, cancer patients were perhaps even more heavily affected during secondary events after the initial crisis, as opioid restrictions and the stigmatization, undoubtedly beneficial in many spaces, of opioid use became prevalent across the American society. During this second period of the opioid crisis (loosely from 2013 to the present day after the Veterans Health Administration Opioid Safety Initiative started), restrictions on opioids have significantly decreased the use and access of opioids for cancer patients. Management of pain, in general, is a complex topic, and cancer pain is no exception. Cancer patients may experience pain related to the disease itself, its treatment, or other comorbidities. This review aims to clarify the impact of reducing opioid use on cancer patients over the past eight years. We summarize the challenges facing providers as they attempt to manage cancer-related pain. Additionally, we propose tools for best practices to reduce the unnecessary suffering of cancer patients and protect against the overuse and abuse of opioids.

American Society of Hematology 2020 guidelines for sickle cell disease: management of acute and chronic pain

BACKGROUND

The management of acute and chronic pain for individuals living with sickle cell disease (SCD) is a clinical challenge. This reflects the paucity of clinical SCD pain research and limited understanding of the complex biological differences between acute and chronic pain. These issues collectively create barriers to effective, targeted interventions. Optimal pain management requires interdisciplinary care.

OBJECTIVE

These evidence-based guidelines developed by the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in pain management decisions for children and adults with SCD.

METHODS

ASH formed a multidisciplinary panel, including 2 patient representatives, that was thoroughly vetted to minimize bias from conflicts of interest. The Mayo Evidence-Based Practice Research Program supported the guideline development process, including updating or performing systematic reviews. Clinical questions and outcomes were prioritized according to importance for clinicians and patients. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used, including GRADE evidence-to-decision frameworks, to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment.

RESULTS

The panel reached consensus on 18 recommendations specific to acute and chronic pain. The recommendations reflect a broad pain management approach, encompassing pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions and analgesic delivery.

CONCLUSIONS

Because of low-certainty evidence and closely balanced benefits and harms, most recommendations are conditional. Patient preferences should drive clinical decisions. Policymaking, including that by payers, will require substantial debate and input from stakeholders. Randomized controlled trials and comparative-effectiveness studies are needed for chronic opioid therapy, nonopioid therapies, and nonpharmacological interventions.

A Comparison of Short Forms of the Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients With Pain – Revised (SOAPP-R)

Abstract. The Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain – Revised (SOAPP-R) is a 24-item self-report questionnaire that assesses risk of aberrant medication-related behavior among chronic pain patients. Recently, an 8-item version of the SOAPP-R that weights items differentially was proposed. However, no previous study had compared the 8-item form with other short versions of the SOAPP-R, including a static 12-item short form and computer-based versions customizing the test length to the individual respondent. Moreover, no prior research had investigated combining the 8-item short form with customized computer-based stopping rules to further enhance efficiency. The objectives of this study were to compare the 8-item version with previously recommended short forms of the SOAPP-R, and to develop and evaluate a new version of the SOAPP-R combining the 8-item version with computer-based stopping rules. Versions were compared via sensitivity, specificity, and mean test length using real-data simulation of three datasets. Although results varied across datasets, the 8-item SOAPP-R compared favorably to previously recommended forms. Combining the 8-item form with computer-based stopping rules reduced the mean test length without affecting sensitivity or specificity; thus, the combined approach is recommended. The methodology used to shorten questionnaires via computer-based testing can also be applied to other instruments.

Techniques to Shorten a Screening Tool for Emergency Department Patients

Introduction

Screening of patients for opioid risk has been recommended prior to opioid prescribing. Opioids are prescribed frequently in the emergency department (ED) setting, but screening tools are often of significant length and therefore limited in their utility. We describe and evaluate three approaches to shortening a screening tool: creation of a short form; curtailment; and stochastic curtailment.

Methods

To demonstrate the various shortening techniques, this retrospective study used data from two studies of ED patients for whom the provider was considering providing an opioid prescription and who completed the Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain-Revised, a 24-item assessment. High-risk criteria from patients’ prescription drug monitoring program data were used as an endpoint. Using real-data simulation, we determined the sensitivity, specificity, and test length of each shortening technique.

Results

We included data from 188 ED patients. The original screener had a test length of 24 questions, a sensitivity of 44% and a specificity of 76%. The 12-question short form had a sensitivity of 41% and specificity of 75%. Curtailment and stochastic curtailment reduced the question length (mean test length ranging from 8.1–19.7 questions) with no reduction in sensitivity or specificity.

Conclusion

In an ED population completing computer-based screening, the techniques of curtailment and stochastic curtailment markedly reduced the screening tool’s length but had no effect on test characteristics. These techniques can be applied to improve efficiency of screening patients in the busy ED environment without sacrificing sensitivity or specificity.

Comprehensive Preoperative Assessment and Global Optimization

To successfully deliver greater perioperative value-based care and to effectively contribute to sustained and meaningful perioperative population health management, the scope of existing preoperative management and its associated services and care provider skills must be expanded. New models of preoperative management are needed, which rely extensively on continuously evolving evidence-based best practice, as well as telemedicine and telehealth, including mobile technologies and connectivity. Along with conventional comorbidity optimization, prehabilitation can effectively promote enhanced postoperative recovery. This article focuses on the opportunities and mechanisms for delivering value-based, comprehensive preoperative assessment and global optimization of the surgical patient.