The Right to Pain Relief: Its Origins in End-of-life Care and Extension to Chronic Pain Care

Characteristics and clinical challenges in patients with substance use disorder in palliative care-experience from a tertiary center in a high-income country

BACKGROUND

Access to palliative care is often limited for challenging and vulnerable groups, including persons with substance use disorders. However, with optimized healthcare options and liberal substitution policies, this patient group is likely to increase over the upcoming years, and comorbidities will also influence the need for palliative support. Here, we aim at analyzing characteristics and specific challenges associated with substance use disorders (SUD) in palliative care.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all patients diagnosed with substance use disorder that were treated at our Competence Center Palliative Care within the University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland between 2015 and 2021. Patient characteristics, including age, gender, duration of hospitalization, as well as specific metrics like body mass index, distinct palliative care assessment scores, and in-hospital opioid consumption were retrieved from the electronic patient files. Demographics and clinical data were analyzed by descriptive statistics, and compared to those of a control group of palliative care patients without SUD. An opioid calculator was used to standardize opioid intake based on morphine equivalents for meaningful comparisons.

RESULTS

The primary characteristics revealed that the majority of individuals were single (56%), had no children (83%), lived alone (39%), and were either unemployed or recipients of a disability pension (in total 50%). Nicotine (89%), opioids (67%), and alcohol (67%) were the most used substances. We identified various comorbidities including psychiatric illnesses alongside SUD (56%), hepatitis A, B, or C (33%), and HIV infection (17%). Patients with SUD were significantly younger (p < 0.5), predominantly male (p < 0.05), and reported a higher prevalence of pain (p < 0.5) compared to the standard cohort of palliative patients. Regarding the challenges most frequently reported by healthcare practitioners, non-compliance, multimorbidity, challenging communication, biographical trauma, lack of social support, and unstable housing situations played a key role.

CONCLUSION

Patients with SUD represent a complex and vulnerable group dealing with multiple comorbidities that profoundly affect both their physical and psychological well-being. Understanding their unique characteristics is pivotal in providing precise and suitable palliative care.

Questioning the Right to Pain Relief and Its Role in the Opioid Epidemic

The new discipline of palliative care helped to establish the right to pain relief at the end of life and the necessity of using opioids to achieve that goal. Professional pain organizations followed the United Nations' model for universal human rights in their declaration of a universal right to pain management. Both palliative care and pain medicine specialties worked to establish pain as a legitimate focus of medical treatment separate from its association with disease. Pain intensity became the metric used to determine the need for treatment and the success of that treatment. Opioids were favored as the most reliable and feasible means to reduced pain intensity. The Harrison Act of 1914 restricted legitimate opioid use to that prescribed by medical professionals as analgesics. This legislation helped establish opioids as specific painkillers that had a distinct capacity to induce addiction. This understanding of opioids as having distinct and separable analgesic and addictive potential was challenged by the 1970s discovery of an endogenous opioid system, which integrates pain and reward functions to support survival. Our modern pain neurophysiology places the patient with pain in a passive position from which it makes sense to assert a right to pain relief. To prevent future opioid epidemics we need to abandon clinical outpatient use of pain intensity scores and redefine the medical necessity of pain treatment as less about the reduction of pain intensity and more about the capacity to pursue personally valued activities.

Post-mortem oxycodone blood concentrations of hospitalized cancer and surgery patients compared with fatal poisonings

Oxycodone is a strong opioid drug commonly used to treat acute, cancer, and chronic non-malignant pain. In this study, all oxycodone-related medico-legal cases where death had occurred in a hospital or nursing home in Finland were investigated to determine the range of post-mortem (PM) oxycodone blood concentrations in a therapeutic setting. All toxicology cases in which oxycodone was detected in PM femoral blood during the 4-year period of 2016–2019 in Finland were retrieved from the national PM toxicology database. In this material, the 365 deceased hospital patient cases that met the study inclusion criteria were divided into four groups according to the cause and manner of death. The reference group of 121 fatal oxycodone poisoning cases comprised two groups: those with verified associated drug abuse and those without drug abuse. The median oxycodone concentration in PM blood was significantly higher in cancer patients (0.10 mg/L) than in patients with recent surgery (0.07 mg/L) or other disease (0.06 mg/L) (p < 0.05). In addition, the median oxycodone concentration was significantly lower in all hospital patient groups than in the poisoning groups, the latter displaying 0.38 mg/L (abuse) and 0.64 mg/L (no abuse) (p < 0.001). This study shows that half of the subjects in the cancer patient group had PM blood oxycodone concentrations above the typical clinical therapeutic plasma concentration range (0.005–0.10 mg/L). Appropriate medication of hospitalized surgery and cancer patients can result in concentrations of up to 0.2 and 0.6 mg/L, respectively, while higher concentrations are exceptional.

Is Chronic Pain a Disease?

It was not until the twentieth century that pain was considered a disease. Before that it was managed medically as a symptom. The motivations for declaring chronic pain a disease, whether of the body or of the brain, include increasing its legitimacy as clinical problem and research focus worthy of attention from healthcare and research organizations alike. But 1 problem with disease concepts is that having a disease favors medical solutions and tends to reduce patient participation. We argue that chronic pain, particularly chronic primary pain (recently designated a first tier pain diagnosis in International Diagnostic Codes 11), is a learned state that is not intransigent even if it has biological correlates. Chronic pain is sometimes a symptom, and may sometimes be its own disease. But here we question the value of a disease focus for much of chronic pain for which patient involvement is essential, and which may need a much broader societal approach than is suggested by the disease designation. PERSPECTIVE: This article examines whether designating chronic pain a disease of the body or brain is helpful or harmful to patients. Can the disease designation help advance treatment, and is it needed to achieve future therapeutic breakthrough? Or does it make patients over-reliant on medical intervention and reduce their engagement in the process of recovery?