Opioids compared with placebo or other treatments for chronic low back pain: an update of the Cochrane Review

Regenerative therapies for lumbar degenerative disc diseases: a literature review

This review aimed to summarize the recent advances and challenges in the field of regenerative therapies for lumbar disc degeneration. The current first-line treatment options for symptomatic lumbar disc degeneration cannot modify the disease process or restore the normal structure, composition, and biomechanical function of the degenerated discs. Cell-based therapies tailored to facilitate intervertebral disc (IVD) regeneration have been developed to restore the IVD extracellular matrix or mitigate inflammatory conditions. Human clinical trials on Mesenchymal Stem Cells (MSCs) have reported promising outcomes exhibited by MSCs in reducing pain and improving function. Nucleus pulposus (NP) cells possess unique regenerative capacities. Biomaterials aimed at NP replacement in IVD regeneration, comprising synthetic and biological materials, aim to restore disc height and segmental stability without compromising the annulus fibrosus. Similarly, composite IVD replacements that combine various biomaterial strategies to mimic the native disc structure, including organized annulus fibrosus and NP components, have shown promise. Furthermore, preclinical studies on regenerative medicine therapies that utilize cells, biomaterials, growth factors, platelet-rich plasma (PRP), and biological agents have demonstrated their promise in repairing degenerated lumbar discs. However, these therapies are associated with significant limitations and challenges that hinder their clinical translation. Thus, further studies must be conducted to address these challenges.

Outcomes After a Statewide Policy to Improve Evidence-Based Treatment of Back Pain Among Medicaid Enrollees in Oregon

BACKGROUND

A novel Oregon Medicaid policy guiding back pain management combined opioid restrictions with emphasis on non-opioid and non-pharmacologic therapies.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the effect of the policy on prescribing, health outcomes, and health service utilization.

DESIGN

Using Medicaid enrollment, medical and prescription claims, prescription drug monitoring program, and vital statistics files, we analyzed the policy's association with selected outcomes using interrupted time series models.

SUBJECTS

Adult Medicaid patients with back pain enrolled between 2014 and 2018.

INTERVENTION

The Oregon Medicaid back pain policy.

MAIN MEASURES

Opioid and non-opioid medication prescribing, procedural care, substance use and mental health conditions, and outpatient and inpatient healthcare utilization.

KEY RESULTS

The policy was associated with decreases in the percentage of Medicaid enrollees with back pain receiving any opioids (- 2.68 percentage points [95% CI - 3.14, - 2.23] level, - 1.01 pp [95% CI - 1.1, - 0.92] slope), days of short-acting opioid use (- 0.4 days [95% CI - 0.53, - 0.26] slope), receipt of more than 7 days of short-acting opioids (- 2.36 pp [95% CI - 2.76, - 1.95] level, - 0.91 pp [95% CI - 1, - 0.83] slope), chronic opioid use (- 1.27 pp [95% CI - 1.59, - 0.94] level, - 0.46 [95% CI - 0.53, - 0.39 slope), and spinal surgeries and procedures. Among secondary outcomes, we found no increase in opioid overdose and a small, statistically significant trend decrease in opioid use disorders. There were small increases in non-opioid substance use and mental health diagnoses and visits but no increase in self-harm.

CONCLUSIONS

A state Medicaid policy emphasizing evidence-based back pain management was associated with decreases in opioid prescribing, spinal surgeries, and opioid use disorder trends, but also short-term increases in mental health encounters and an increase in non-opioid substance use disorder trends. Such policies may help reinforce evidence-based care, but must be designed with consideration of potential harms.

Validity of central pain processing biomarkers for predicting the occurrence of oncological chronic pain: a study protocol

BACKGROUND

Despite recent improvements in cancer detection and survival rates, managing cancer-related pain remains a significant challenge. Compared to neuropathic and inflammatory pain conditions, cancer pain mechanisms are poorly understood, despite pain being one of the most feared symptoms by cancer patients and significantly impairing their quality of life, daily activities, and social interactions. The objective of this work was to select a panel of biomarkers of central pain processing and modulation and assess their ability to predict chronic pain in patients with cancer using predictive artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms.

METHODS

We will perform a prospective longitudinal cohort, multicentric study involving 450 patients with a recent cancer diagnosis. These patients will undergo an in-person assessment at three different time points: pretreatment, 6 months, and 12 months after the first visit. All patients will be assessed through demographic and clinical questionnaires and self-report measures, quantitative sensory testing (QST), and electroencephalography (EEG) evaluations. We will select the variables that best predict the future occurrence of pain using a comprehensive approach that includes clinical, psychosocial, and neurophysiological variables.

DISCUSSION

This study aimed to provide evidence regarding the links between poor pain modulation mechanisms at precancer treatment in patients who will later develop chronic pain and to clarify the role of treatment modality (modulated by age, sex and type of cancer) on pain. As a final output, we expect to develop a predictive tool based on AI that can contribute to the anticipation of the future occurrence of pain and help in therapeutic decision making.

Identification of compounds that cause axonal dieback without cytotoxicity in dorsal root ganglia explants and intervertebral disc cells with potential to treat pain via denervation

Low back pain, knee osteoarthritis, and cancer patients suffer from chronic pain. Aberrant nerve growth into intervertebral disc, knee, and tumors, are common pathologies that lead to these chronic pain conditions. Axonal dieback induced by capsaicin (Caps) denervation has been FDA-approved to treat painful neuropathies and knee osteoarthritis but with short-term efficacy and discomfort. Herein, we propose to evaluate pyridoxine (Pyr), vincristine sulfate (Vcr) and ionomycin (Imy) as axonal dieback compounds for denervation with potential to alleviate pain. Previous literature suggests Pyr, Vcr, and Imy can cause undesired axonal degeneration, but no previous work has evaluated axonal dieback and cytotoxicity on adult rat dorsal root ganglia (DRG) explants. Thus, we performed axonal dieback screening using adult rat DRG explants in vitro with Caps as a positive control and assessed cytotoxicity. Imy inhibited axonal outgrowth and slowed axonal dieback, while Pyr and Vcr at high concentrations produced significant reduction in axon length and robust axonal dieback within three days. DRGs treated with Caps, Vcr, or Imy had increased DRG cytotoxicity compared to matched controls, but overall cytotoxicity was minimal and at least 88% lower compared to lysed DRGs. Pyr did not lead to any DRG cytotoxicity. Further, neither Pyr nor Vcr triggered intervertebral disc cell death or affected cellular metabolic activity after three days of incubation in vitro. Overall, our findings suggest Pyr and Vcr are not toxic to DRGs and intervertebral disc cells, and there is potential for repurposing these compounds for axonal dieback compounds to cause local denervation and alleviate pain.

Pathogenesis of sleep disordered breathing in the setting of opioid use: A multiple mediation analysis using physiology

STUDY OBJECTIVES

Opioid medications are commonly used and are known to impact both breathing and sleep, and are linked with adverse health outcomes including death. Clinical data indicate that chronic opioid use causes central sleep apnea, and might also worsen obstructive sleep apnea. The mechanisms by which opioids influence sleep-disordered breathing pathogenesis are not established.

METHODS

Patients who underwent clinically-indicated polysomnography confirming sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) (AHI≥5/hr) were included. Each patient using opioids was matched by sex, age, and BMI to three control individuals not using opioids. Physiology known to influence SDB pathogenesis were determined from validated polysomnography-based signal analysis. PSG and physiology paramters of interest were compared between opioid and control individuals, adjusted for covariates. Mediation analysis was used to evaluate the link between opioids, physiology, and polysomnographic metrics.

RESULTS

178 individuals using opioids were matched to 534 controls (median [IQR] age 59 [50,65] years, BMI 33 [29,41] kg/m2, 57% female, daily morphine equivalent 30 [20,80] mg). Compared with controls, opioids were associated with increased central apneas (2.8 vs 1.7 events/hr; p=0.001) and worsened hypoxemia (5 vs 3% sleep with SpO2<88%; p=0.013), with similar overall AHI. Use of opioids was associated with higher loop gain, a lower respiratory rate and higher respiratory rate variability. Higher loop gain and increased respiratory rate variability mediated the effect of opioids on central apnea, but did not mediate the effect on hypoxemia.

CONCLUSIONS

Opioids have multi-level effects impacting SDB. Targeting these factors may help mitigate deleterious respiratory consequences of chronic opioid use.

Increased Use and Large Variation in Strong Opioids and Metamizole (Dipyrone) for Minor and Major Musculoskeletal Injuries Between 2008 and 2018: An Analysis of a Representative Sample of Swiss Workers

PURPOSE

Musculoskeletal (MSK) injuries are a major contributing factor for chronic pain. To date, little is known how pain medication use in MSK injuries has changed over time. We assessed pain medication prescription for MSK injuries in a representative sample of Swiss workers between 2008 and 2018.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of the Swiss Accident Insurance Fund (Suva) data. We calculated annual pain medication use, treatment days, and costs associated with pain medication use in minor and major MSK injuries.

RESULTS

In total, 1,921,382 cases with MSK injuries with ≥ 1 pain medication were analyzed. Whereas MSK injuries with ≥ 1 pain medication increased by 9.4%, we observed a larger increase in metamizole (+ 254%), strong opioids (+ 88.4%), coxibs (+ 85.8%), and paracetamol (+ 28.1%). Strong opioids were increasingly used in minor (+ 91.4%) and major (+ 88.3%) injuries. The increase in metamizole (+ 390.6%) and coxibs (+ 115.5%) was larger in minor injuries compared to major injuries (+ 238.7% and + 80.6%, respectively). Medical expenses decreased in all medications except for strong opioids where a substantial increase was observed (+ 192.4% in minor; + 34% in major injuries).

CONCLUSIONS

We observed a disproportionate increase in metamizole, strong opioids, coxibs, and paracetamol prescriptions even in minor MSK injuries between 2008 and 2018. Whereas treatment costs decreased for all pain medications, there was a substantial increase in strong opioids. A more liberal prescription practice of opioids conflict with current evidence-based practice recommendations and need to be addressed by physicians and policy makers.

The efficacy and safety of oral antibiotic treatment in patients with chronic low back pain and Modic changes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to summarize evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of oral antibiotic intervention for chronic low back pain (CLBP) patients with/without type-1 Modic changes (MC1).

Methods

AMED, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Medline were searched from inception to March 3, 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or non-RCTs that investigated the effectiveness or safety of oral antibiotics in treating CLBP patients were eligible for inclusion. Two independent reviewers screened abstracts, full-text articles, and extracted data. The methodological quality of each included article were evaluated by RoB2 and NIH quality assessment tools. The quality of evidence was appraised by GRADE. Meta-analyses were performed, where applicable. A subgroup analysis was conducted to evaluate the RCTs and case series separately, and to evaluate the effect of removing a low-quality RCT.

Results

Three RCTs and four case series were included. All Amoxicillin-clavulanate/Amoxicillin treatments lasted for approximately 3 months. Moderate- and low-quality evidence suggested that antibiotic was significantly better than placebo in improving disability and quality of life in CLBP patients with MC1 at 12-month follow-up, respectively. Low-quality evidence from meta-analyses of RCTs showed that oral antibiotic was significantly better than placebo in improving pain and disability in CLBP patients with MC1 immediately post-treatment. Very low-quality evidence from the case series suggested that oral Amoxicillin-clavulanate significantly improved LBP/leg pain, and LBP-related disability. Conversely, low-quality evidence found that oral Amoxicillin alone was not significantly better than placebo in improving global perceived health in patients with CLBP at the 12-month follow-up. Additionally, oral antibiotic users had significantly more adverse effects than placebo users.

Conclusions

Although oral antibiotics were statistically superior to placebo in reducing LBP-related disability in patients with CLBP and concomitant MC1, its clinical significance remains uncertain. Future large-scale high-quality RCTs are warranted to validate the effectiveness of antibiotics in individuals with CLBP.

What a pain in the … back: a review of current treatment options with a focus on naproxen sodium

Non-specific low back pain (LBP) represents a challenging and prevalent condition that is one of the most common symptoms leading to primary care physician visits. While established guidelines recommend prioritizing non-pharmacological approaches as the primary course of action, pharmacological treatments are advised when non-pharmacological approaches are ineffective or based on patient preference. These guidelines recommend non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or skeletal muscle relaxers (SMRs) as the first-line pharmacological options for acute or subacute LBP, while NSAIDs are the exclusive first-line pharmacological option for chronic LBP. Although SMRs are generally effective for acute LBP, the available evidence does not support the view that they improve functional recovery, and their comparative efficacy to NSAIDs and other analgesics remains unknown, while studies have shown them to introduce adverse events without significantly reducing LBP. Moreover, opioids continue to be widely prescribed for LBP, despite limited evidence for effectiveness and known risks of addiction and overdose. Broader use of non-opioid pharmacotherapy, including the appropriate use of OTC options, is critical to addressing the opioid crisis. The balance of evidence indicates that NSAIDs have a favorable benefit-risk profile when compared to other available pharmacological treatment options for non-specific LBP, a condition that is primarily acute in nature and well-suited for self-treatment with OTC analgesics. While clinical guidelines do not differentiate between NSAIDs, evidence indicates that OTC naproxen sodium effectively relieves pain across multiple types of pain models, and furthermore, the 14-h half-life of naproxen sodium allows sustained, all day pain relief with reduced patient pill burden as compared to shorter acting options. Choosing the most appropriate approach for managing LBP, including non-pharmacological options, should be based on the patient's condition, severity of pain, potential risks, and individual patient preference and needs.

Understanding general practitioners' prescribing choices to patients with chronic low back pain: a discrete choice experiment

BACKGROUND

Although NSAIDs are recommended as a first line analgesic treatment, opioids are very commonly prescribed to patients with low back pain (LBP) despite risks of harms.

AIM

This study aimed to determine factors contributing to general practitioners' (GPs') prescribing choices to patients with chronic LBP in a primary care setting.

METHOD

This discrete choice experiment (DCE) presented 210 GPs with hypothetical scenarios of a patient with chronic LBP. Participants chose their preferred treatment for each choice set, either the opioid, NSAID or neither. The scenarios varied by two patient attributes; non-specific LBP or LBP with referred leg pain (sciatica) and number of comorbidities. The three treatment attributes also varied, being: the type of opioid or NSAID, degree of pain reduction and number of adverse events. The significance of each attribute in influencing clinical decisions was the primary outcome and the degree to which GPs preferred the alternative based on the number of adverse events or the amount of pain reduction was the secondary outcome.

RESULTS

Overall, GPs preferred NSAIDs (45.2%, 95% CI 38.7-51.7%) over opioids (28.8%, 95% CI 23.0-34.7%), however there was no difference between the type of NSAID or opioid preferred. Additionally, the attributes of pain reduction and adverse events did not influence a GP's choice between NSAIDs or opioids for patients with chronic LBP.

CONCLUSION

GPs prefer prescribing NSAIDs over opioids for a patient with chronic low back pain regardless of patient factors of comorbidities or the presence of leg pain (i.e. sciatica).

Factors influencing pain medication and opioid use in patients with musculoskeletal injuries: a retrospective insurance claims database study

Opioid use is only recommended in selected cases of musculoskeletal (MSK) injuries. We assessed factors associated with increased opioid use in MSK injuries. In a retrospective analysis of over four million workers with MSK injuries using the Swiss National Accident Insurance Fund (Suva) database, we analyzed risk factors by multivariate logistic regression. Injury severity was associated with pain medication, opioid, and strong opioid use. Whereas fractures, contusions, and ruptures had higher odds for any pain medication use, increased odds for strong opioids were observed in fractures, superficial injuries, and other injuries. Injuries of the shoulders, elbow, chest, back/spine, thorax, and pelvis/hips showed high odds for opioid use (odds ratio (OR) > 2.0). Injuries of the shoulders had higher odds for strong opioid use (OR 1.136; 95% CI 1.040-1.241). The odds for using strong opioids increased from 2008 OR 0.843 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.798-0.891) to 2018 OR 1.503 (95% CI 1.431-1.578), compared to 2013. Injury severity, type of injury, and injured body parts influenced the use of pain medication and overall opioid use in musculoskeletal injuries. Strong opioids were more often used in fractures but also in superficial and other minor injuries, which indicates that other factors play a role when prescribing strong opioids.

Chronic pain after spine surgery: Insights into pathogenesis, new treatment, and preventive therapy

Chronic pain after spine surgery (CPSS) is often characterized by intractable low back pain and/or radiating leg pain, and has been reported in 8-40% of patients that received lumbar spine surgery. We conducted a literature search of PubMed, MEDLINE/OVID with a focus on studies about the etiology and treatments of CPSS and low back pain. Our aim was to provide a narrative review that would help us better understand the pathogenesis and current treatment options for CPSS. This knowledge will aid in the development of optimal strategies for managing postoperative pain symptoms and potentially curing the underlying etiologies. Firstly, we reviewed recent advances in the mechanistic study of CPSS, illustrated both structural (e.g., fibrosis and scaring) and non-structural factors (e.g., inflammation, neuronal sensitization, glial activation, psychological factor) causing CPSS, and highlighted those having not been given sufficient attention as the etiology of CPSS. Secondly, we summarized clinical evidence and therapeutic perspectives of CPSS. We also presented new insights about the treatments and etiology of CPSS, in order to raise awareness of medical staff in the identification and management of this complex painful disease. Finally, we discussed potential new targets for clinical interventions of CPSS and future perspectives of mechanistic and translational research. CPSS patients often have a mixed etiology. By reviewing recent findings, the authors advocate that clinicians shall comprehensively evaluate each case to formulate a patient-specific and multi-modal pain treatment, and importantly, consider an early intraoperative intervention that may decrease the risk or even prevent the onset of CPSS.

Translational potential statement

CPSS remains difficult to treat. This review broadens our understanding of clinical therapies and underlying mechanisms of CPSS, and provides new insights which will aid in the development of novel mechanism-based therapies for not only managing the established pain symptoms but also preventing the development of CPSS.

The Biology of Placebo and Nocebo Effects on Experimental and Chronic Pain: State of the Art

(1) Background: In recent years, placebo and nocebo effects have been extensively documented in different medical conditions, including pain. The scientific literature has provided strong evidence of how the psychosocial context accompanying the treatment administration can influence the therapeutic outcome positively (placebo effects) or negatively (nocebo effects). (2) Methods: This state-of-the-art paper aims to provide an updated overview of placebo and nocebo effects on pain. (3) Results: The most common study designs, the psychological mechanisms, and neurobiological/genetic determinants of these phenomena are discussed, focusing on the differences between positive and negative context effects on pain in experimental settings on healthy volunteers and in clinical settings on chronic pain patients. Finally, the last section describes the implications for clinical and research practice to maximize the medical and scientific routine and correctly interpret the results of research studies on placebo and nocebo effects. (4) Conclusions: While studies on healthy participants seem consistent and provide a clear picture of how the brain reacts to the context, there are no unique results of the occurrence and magnitude of placebo and nocebo effects in chronic pain patients, mainly due to the heterogeneity of pain. This opens up the need for future studies on the topic.

Between guidelines and clinical trials: evidence-based advice on the pharmacological management of non-specific chronic low back pain

The pharmacological management of nonspecific chronic low back pain (NCLBP) aims to restore patients' daily activities and improve their quality of life. The management of NCLBP is not well codified and extremely heterogeneous, and residual symptoms are common. Pharmacological management should be considered as co-adjuvant to non-pharmacological therapy, and should be guided by the symptoms reported by the patients. Depending on the individual severity of NCLPB, pharmacological management may range from nonopioid to opioid analgesics. It is important to identify patients with generalized sensory hypersensitivity, who may benefit from dedicated therapy. This article provides an evidence-based overview of the principles of pharmacological management of NCLPB.

No long-term effects after a 3-week open-label placebo treatment for chronic low back pain: a 3-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial

ABSTRACT

Chronic low back pain is prevalent, highly disabling, and a relevant socioeconomic health concern. Although allocated to placebo groups, patients in randomized controlled trials show significant pain relief, pointing to the relevance of placebo effects. Overcoming ethical and legal concerns related to deceptive placebos, recent studies have demonstrated the efficacy of short-term treatments for chronic low back pain with open-label (ie, nondeceptive) placebos. However, data on long-term efficacy of open-label placebos are sparse. Here, we report a 3-year follow-up of our previously published randomized controlled trial demonstrating pain reduction, improvement in disability, and depressive symptoms after a 3-week treatment with open-label placebos. Including records from 89 previously enrolled patients, we investigated changes between the groups with and without previous open-label placebo treatment in pain intensity (primary outcome), disability and mood (secondary outcomes), biopsychosocial factors and lifestyle (exploratory outcomes) from parent baseline to follow-up. Over the 3-year period, there were no differences in any outcome between groups with and without open-label placebo treatment. Therefore, our follow-up data do not support the previously suggested assumption that a 3-week open-label placebo treatment has long-term effects. This study was preregistered on April 14, 2020, in the German Clinical Trials Register (registration number DRKS00021405).

The slow de-implementation of non-evidence-based treatments in low back pain hospital care-Trends in treatments using Dutch hospital register data from 1991 to 2018

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability worldwide and has an excessive societal burden. Accumulating evidence has shown that some medical approaches such as imaging in absence of clear indications, medication and some invasive treatments may contribute to the problem rather than alleviating it.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the extent of de-implementation of non-evidence-based hospital treatments for LBP care in the Netherlands in the last three decades.

METHODS

Using a register-based population-level observational study with Dutch hospital data, providing a nearly complete coverage of hospital admissions in the Netherlands in 1991-2018, we assessed five frequently applied non-evidence-based hospital treatments for LBP. Time trends in treatment use (absolute and per 100,000 inhabitants) were plotted and analysed using Poisson regression.

RESULTS

The use of bed rest for non-specific LBP and hernia nuclei pulposi, and discectomy for spinal stenosis decreased 91%, 81% and 86% since the availability of evidence/guidelines, respectively. De-implementation, beyond 84%, was reached after 18 and 17 years for bed rest for non-specific LBP and discectomy respectively, while it was not reached after 28 years for bed rest for hernia nuclei pulposi. For spinal fusion and invasive pain treatment, there was an initial increase followed by a reduction. Overall, these treatments reduced by 85% and 75%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In the Netherlands, de-implementation of five non-recommended hospital LBP treatments, if at all, took several decades. Although de-implementation was substantial, slow de-implementation has likely resulted in considerable waste of resources and avoidable harm to many patients in Dutch hospitals.

SIGNIFICANCE

Medically intensive approaches to low-back pain care contribute to the high societal burden of this disease. There have been calls to avoid such care. Using Dutch hospital data, we showed that de-implementation of five non-recommended hospital low-back pain treatments, if at all, took several decades (i.e. ≥17 years) after availability of evidence and guidelines. Slow de-implementation has likely resulted in considerable waste of resources and avoidable harm to hospital patients; better ways for de-implementation of non-evidence-based care are needed.

Do expectations influence pain? Recognizing Irving Kirsch's contribution to our understanding of pain

Pain is a universal experience that can take different forms, and it can be acute or chronic. Experimental pain, such as heat pain, can help us better understand the pain experience, as it induces transient, but robust central sensitization in participants. Central sensitization is considered a key underlying concept in the development and maintenance of chronic pain and is defined as an overly effective transmission of nociception in the central nervous system. Expectations can influence perceived pain intensity and treatment success. Irving Kirsch's work in the field of experimental pain has greatly contributed to our understanding of how expectations influence the pain experience. In this article, we present some of Kirsch's landmark studies in this area and discuss their (clinical) implications.

Association between sustained opioid prescription and frequent emergency department use: a cohort study

BACKGROUND

Chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) is common among frequent emergency department (ED) users, although factors underlying this association are unclear. This study estimated the association between sustained opioid use and frequent ED use among patients with CNCP.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study using a Canadian provincial health insurer database (Régie d'Assurance Maladie du Québec). The database included adults with both ≥1 chronic condition and ≥ 1 ED visit in 2012 or 2013. Inclusion in the study further required a CNCP diagnosis, public drug insurance coverage and 1-year survival after the first ED visit in 2012 or 2013 (index visit). Multivariable logistic regression was used to derive ORs of frequent ED use (≥5 visits in the year following the index visit) subsequent to sustained opioid use (≥60 days opioids prescription within 90 days preceding the index visit), adjusting for important covariables.

RESULTS

From 576 688 patients in the database, 58 237 were included in the study. Of these, 4109 (7.1%) had received a sustained opioid prescription and 4735 (8.1%) were frequent ED users in the follow-up year. Sustained opioid use was not associated with frequent ED use in the multivariable model (OR: 1.06, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.19). Novel associated covariables were benzodiazepine prescription (OR: 1.21, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.30) and polypharmacy (OR: 1.23, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.34).

CONCLUSIONS

Due to confounding by social and medical vulnerability, patients with CNCP with sustained opioid use appear to have a higher propensity for frequent ED use in unadjusted models. However, sustained opioid use was not associated with frequent ED use in these patients after adjustment.

CDC Clinical Practice Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Pain - United States, 2022

This guideline provides recommendations for clinicians providing pain care, including those prescribing opioids, for outpatients aged ≥18 years. It updates the CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain - United States, 2016 (MMWR Recomm Rep 2016;65[No. RR-1]:1-49) and includes recommendations for managing acute (duration of <1 month), subacute (duration of 1-3 months), and chronic (duration of >3 months) pain. The recommendations do not apply to pain related to sickle cell disease or cancer or to patients receiving palliative or end-of-life care. The guideline addresses the following four areas: 1) determining whether or not to initiate opioids for pain, 2) selecting opioids and determining opioid dosages, 3) deciding duration of initial opioid prescription and conducting follow-up, and 4) assessing risk and addressing potential harms of opioid use. CDC developed the guideline using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Recommendations are based on systematic reviews of the scientific evidence and reflect considerations of benefits and harms, patient and clinician values and preferences, and resource allocation. CDC obtained input from the Board of Scientific Counselors of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (a federally chartered advisory committee), the public, and peer reviewers. CDC recommends that persons with pain receive appropriate pain treatment, with careful consideration of the benefits and risks of all treatment options in the context of the patient's circumstances. Recommendations should not be applied as inflexible standards of care across patient populations. This clinical practice guideline is intended to improve communication between clinicians and patients about the benefits and risks of pain treatments, including opioid therapy; improve the effectiveness and safety of pain treatment; mitigate pain; improve function and quality of life for patients with pain; and reduce risks associated with opioid pain therapy, including opioid use disorder, overdose, and death.

Low-Dose NSAIDs Efficacy in Orthopedic Applications

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) [cyclooxygenase-1 (COX-1) and cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors] and COXIBs (the COX-2 selective inhibitors) may induce several potentially severe and life-threatening issues especially in elderly patients. The use of low-dose NSAIDs is associated with lower risk of side effects compared to the standard dosage. Low-dose NSAIDs could minimize the side effects of these drugs while maintaining their clinical efficacy and effectiveness. The present study evaluates the effectiveness and safety of low-dose NSAIDs in musculoskeletal applications.

Clinical Meaningfulness of Response to Tanezumab in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain: Analysis From a 56-Week, Randomized, Placebo- and Tramadol-Controlled, Phase 3 Trial

INTRODUCTION

A recent phase 3, randomized, placebo- and tramadol-controlled trial (56-week treatment/24-week safety follow-up) demonstrated efficacy of tanezumab 10 mg in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) and a history of inadequate response to standard-of-care analgesics. Here, we report on the clinical meaningfulness of treatment response in this study, focused on secondary measures of pain, interference with daily functions, overall disease status, and satisfaction with treatment.

METHODS

Patients received placebo (up to week 16; n = 406), subcutaneously administered (SC) tanezumab 5 mg (every 8 weeks; n = 407), SC tanezumab 10 mg (every 8 weeks; n = 407), or orally administered tramadol prolonged-release (100-300 mg/day; n = 605) for 56 weeks. Patient's global assessment of low back pain (PGA-LBP), Brief Pain Inventory-short form (BPI-sf), Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM), and modified Patient-Reported Treatment Impact (mPRTI) were assessed at weeks 16 and 56.

RESULTS

At week 16, significant (p < 0.05) improvements over placebo were evident with tanezumab for the PGA-LBP (10 mg) and most BPI-sf (both doses), TSQM (both doses), and mPRTI (both doses) items assessed. Improvements over baseline persisted for the PGA-LBP and BPI-sf at week 56. However, the magnitude of improvements was modestly lower at week 56 relative to week 16. Tramadol did not improve PGA-LBP or BPI-sf scores versus placebo at week 16. Most differences between tanezumab and tramadol at week 56 did not reach the level of statistical significance for all endpoints.

CONCLUSIONS

The totality of the evidence as captured by measures of pain, interference with daily function, patient overall assessment of disease status, and satisfaction with treatment demonstrates the clinically meaningful benefit of tanezumab for some patients with CLBP compared with placebo.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov: NCT02528253.

Trends in opioid and non-opioid treatment for chronic non-cancer pain and cancer pain among privately insured adults in the United States, 2012–2019

Recent clinical guidelines have emphasized non-opioid treatments in lieu of prescription opioids for chronic non-cancer pain, exempting cancer patients from these recommendations. In this study, we determine trends in opioid and non-opioid treatment among privately insured adults with chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) or cancer. Using administrative claims data from IBM MarketScan Research Databases, we identified privately-insured adults who were continuously enrolled in insurance for at least one calendar year from 2012 to 2019. We identified individuals with CNCP diagnosis, defined as a diagnosis of arthritis, headache, low back pain, and/or neuropathic pain, and a individuals with cancer diagnosis in a calendar year. Outcomes included receipt of any opioid, non-opioid medication, or non-pharmacologic CNCP therapy and opioid prescribing volume, MME-per-day, and days’ supply. Estimates were regression-adjusted for age, sex, and region. Between 2012 and 2019, the proportion of patients who received any opioid decreased across both groups (CNCP: 49.7 to 30.5%, p<0.01; cancer: 86.0 to 78.7%, p<0.01). Non-opioid pain medication receipt remained steady for individuals with CNCP (66.7 to 66.4%, p<0.01) and increased for individuals with cancer (74.4 to 78.8%, p<0.01), while non-pharmacologic therapy use rose among individuals with CNCP (62.4 to 66.1%, p<0.01). Among those prescribed opioids, there was a decrease in the receipt of at least one prescription with >90 MME/day (CNCP: 13.9% in 2012 to 4.9% in 2019, p<0.01; Cancer: 26.2% to 7.6%, p<0.01); >7 days of supply (CNCP: 56.3% to 30.7%, p <0.01; Cancer: 47.5% to 22.7%, p<0.01), the mean number of opioid prescriptions (CNCP: 5.2 to 3.9, p<0.01; Cancer: 4.0 to 2.7, p<0.01) and mean MME/day (CNCP: 49.9 to 38.0, p<0.01; Cancer: 62.4 to 44.7, p<0.01). Overall, from 2012–2019, opioid prescribing declined for CNCP and cancer, with larger reductions for patients with CNCP. For both groups, reductions in prescribed opioids outpaced increases in non-opioid alternatives.

A review of trial and real-world data applying elements of a realist approach to identify behavioural mechanisms supporting practitioners to taper opioids

This evidence synthesis applying realist concepts and behavioural science aimed to identify behavioural mechanisms and contexts that facilitate prescribers tapering opioids. We identified relevant opioid‐tapering interventions and services from a 2018 international systematic review and a 2019 England‐wide survey, respectively. Interventions and services were eligible if they provided information about contexts and/or behavioural mechanisms influencing opioid‐tapering success. A stakeholder group (n = 23) generated draft programme theories based around the 14 domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework. We refined these using the trial and service data. From 71 articles and 21 survey responses, 56 and 16 respectively were included, representing primary care, hospital, specialist pain facilities and prison services. We identified 6 programme theories comprising 5 behavioural mechanisms: prescribers' knowledge about how to taper; build prescribers' beliefs about capabilities to initiate tapering discussions and manage psychological consequences of tapering; perceived professional role in tapering; the environmental context enabling referral to specialists; and facilitating positive social influence by aligning patient: prescriber expectations of tapering. No interventions are addressing all 6 mechanisms supportive of tapering. Work is required to operationalise programme theories according to organisational structures and resources. An example operationalisation is combining tapering guidelines with information about local excess opioid problems and endorsing these with organisational branding. Prescribers being given the skills and confidence to initiate tapering discussions by training them in cognitive‐based interventions and incorporating access to psychological and physical support in the patient pathway. Patients being provided with leaflets about the tapering process and informed about the patient pathway.

Tramadol Use in United States Emergency Departments 2007-2018

BACKGROUND

Amidst the opioid epidemic, there has been an increasing focus on opioid utilization in U.S. emergency departments (EDs). Compared with other opioids, little is known about the use of tramadol over the past decade. Tramadol has uncertain efficacy and a concerning adverse effect profile compared with traditional opioids.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to describe trends in tramadol use in U.S. EDs between 2007 and 2018.

METHODS

We analyzed the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey from 2007 to 2018 to examine ED visits by patients 18 years or older in which tramadol was administered or prescribed. We examined trends in demographics and resource utilization and compared these trends with those of traditional opioids. Survey-weighted analyses were conducted to provide national-level estimates.

RESULTS

Between 2007 and 2018, ED visits in which tramadol was used increased 70.6%, from 1.7% of all ED visits in 2007 to 2.9% in 2018. The largest increases were noted among patients aged 55 through 64 years and 65 years and older. Diagnostic resource utilization increased across the study period. Overall opioid utilization during the study period decreased from 28.4% in 2007 to 17.9% in 2018 (p < 0.001). The use of other specific opioids declined or remained stable between 2007 and 2018.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the use of traditional opioids decreased from 2007 to 2018, the use of tramadol increased. Increases were largest among older patients, who may be more susceptible to the adverse effects associated with this medication. Further research in the appropriate use of tramadol in the ED setting is warranted.

Impact of contextual factors on patient outcomes following conservative low back pain treatment: systematic review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Chronic low back pain is pervasive, societally impactful, and current treatments only provide moderate relief. Exploring whether therapeutic elements, either unrecognised or perceived as implicit within clinical encounters, are acknowledged and deliberately targeted may improve treatment efficacy. Contextual factors (specifically, patient's and practitioner's beliefs/characteristics; patient-practitioner relationships; the therapeutic setting/environment; and treatment characteristics) could be important, but there is limited evidence regarding their influence. This research aims to review the impact of interventions modifying contextual factors during conservative care on patient's pain and physical functioning.

DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT

Four electronic databases (Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO and AMED) were searched from 2009 until 15th February 2022, using tailored search strategies, and resulted in 3476 unique citations. After initial screening, 170 full-text records were potentially eligible and assessed against the inclusion-exclusion criteria. Thereafter, studies were assessed for methodological quality using a modified Downs and Black scale, data extracted, and synthesised using a narrative approach.

RESULTS

Twenty-one primary studies (N = 3075 participants), were included in this review. Eight studies reported significant improvements in pain intensity, and seven in physical functioning, in favour of the contextual factor intervention(s). Notable contextual factors included: addressing maladaptive illness beliefs; verbal suggestions to influence symptom change expectations; visual or physical cues to suggest pain-relieving treatment properties; and positive communication such as empathy to enhance the therapeutic alliance.

CONCLUSION

This review identified influential contextual factors which may augment conservative chronic low back pain care. The heterogeneity of interventions suggests modifying more than one contextual factor may be more impactful on patients' clinical outcomes, although these findings require judicious interpretation.

What Is New in the Clinical Management of Low Back Pain: A Narrative Review

Low back pain (LBP) is a prevalent condition associated with disability. Treating patients with LBP becomes further complicated by the potential presence of underlying conditions, such as cancer or traumatic injury, or biopsychosocial aspects. LBP usually has a neuropathic component that must be assessed and treated appropriately. Pharmacological management of LBP requires a thorough knowledge of the available agents and the mechanisms of the LBP. Although there are effective pharmacological treatments for LBP, it is important to consider safety issues. Fixed-dose combination products may be helpful, as they can reduce opioid consumption without sacrificing analgesic benefits. Neuromodulation is an important and sometimes overlooked treatment option for LBP and may be appropriate for chronic LBP requiring long-term treatment. Imaging studies support neuroplastic changes in the brain as a result of neuromodulation. Interventional approaches to chronic LBP are numerous and must be appropriately selected based on the individual patient. Evidence in support of epidural injections for LBP is strong for short-term pain control but moderate to limited for long-term relief. Rehabilitation for LBP can be an important element of long-term care, and new forms of rehabilitation programs are being developed using telemedicine. A variety of new and established treatments are available for patients with LBP, and clinicians and patients may benefit from emerging new treatment modalities.

Non-operative treatment for low back pain: A review of evidence and recommendations

Background Low back pain (LBP) is a healthcare problem with high global prevalence, with non-operative management being the first line of treatment in the majority of patients. This literature review summarizes the current evidence for various modalities of non-operative treatment for LBP. Methods We did a literature search to elicit high-quality evidence for non-operative treatment modalities for LBP, including Cochrane Database reviews and systematic reviews or meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Only when these were not available for a particular treatment modality, other level 1 studies were included. The quality of evidence was categorized in accordance with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) method-a globally adopted tool for grading the quality of evidence and making treatment recommendations. Results The treatment modalities that were reviewed included: general measures, medications/pharmacotherapy, exercises, electromagnetic therapies, alternative treatment modalities and interventional therapies. We found that high-quality evidence is lacking for most non-operative treatment modalities for LBP. The majority of interventions have small benefits or are similar to placebo. Conclusion The current evidence for non-operative treatment modalities for LBP is insufficient to draw conclusions or make recommendations to clinicians. High-quality trials are required before widespread use of any treatment modality. Considering that non-operative treatment is usually the first line of therapy for most patients with LBP, it deserves to be the focus of future research in spinal disorders.

Formulation of Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) clinical practice guideline for the management of low back pain- the revised 2019 edition

BACKGROUND

The latest clinical guidelines are mandatory for physicians to follow when practicing evidence-based medicine in the treatment of low back pain. Those guidelines should target not only Japanese board-certified orthopaedic surgeons, but also primary physicians, and they should be prepared based entirely on evidence-based medicine. The Japanese Orthopaedic Association Low Back Pain guideline committee decided to update the guideline and launched the formulation committee. The purpose of this study was to describe the formulation we implemented for the revision of the guideline with the latest data of evidence-based medicine.

METHODS

The Japanese Orthopaedic Association Low Back Pain guideline formulation committee revised the previous guideline based on a method for preparing clinical guidelines in Japan proposed by Medical Information Network Distribution Service Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. Two key phrases, "body of evidence" and "benefit and harm balance" were focused on in the revised version. Background and clinical questions were determined, followed by literature search related to each question. Appropriate articles were selected from all the searched literature. Structured abstracts were prepared, and then meta-analyses were performed. The strength of both the body of evidence and the recommendation was decided by the committee members.

RESULTS

Nine background and nine clinical qvuestions were determined. For each clinical question, outcomes from the literature were collected and meta-analysis was performed. Answers and explanations were described for each clinical question, and the strength of the recommendation was decided. For background questions, the recommendations were described based on previous literature.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2019 clinical practice guideline for the management of low back pain was completed according to the latest evidence-based medicine. We strongly hope that this guideline serves as a benchmark for all physicians, as well as patients, in the management of low back pain.

Long-Term Medicare Costs Associated With Opioid Analgesic Therapy vs Spinal Manipulative Therapy for Chronic Low Back Pain in a Cohort of Older Adults

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to compare Medicare healthcare expenditures for patients who received long-term treatment of chronic low back pain (cLBP) with either opioid analgesic therapy (OAT) or spinal manipulative therapy (SMT).

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective observational study using a cohort design for analysis of Medicare claims data. The study population included Medicare beneficiaries enrolled under Medicare Parts A, B, and D from 2012 through 2016. We assembled cohorts of patients who received long-term management of cLBP with OAT or SMT (such as delivered by chiropractic or osteopathic practitioners) and evaluated the comparative effect of OAT vs SMT upon expenditures, using multivariable regression to control for beneficiary characteristics and measures of health status, and propensity score weighting and binning to account for selection bias.

RESULTS

The study sample totaled 28,160 participants, of whom 77% initiated long-term care of cLBP with OAT, and 23% initiated care with SMT. For care of low back pain specifically, average long-term costs for patients who initiated care with OAT were 58% lower than those who initiated care with SMT. However, overall long-term healthcare expenditures under Medicare were 1.87 times higher for patients who initiated care via OAT compared with those initiated care with SMT (95% CI 1.65-2.11; P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Adults aged 65 to 84 who initiated long-term treatment for cLBP via OAT incurred lower long-term costs for low back pain but higher long-term total healthcare costs under Medicare compared with patients who initiated long-term treatment with SMT.

Pre-Visit Education on Pain Management Options Prior to the First Clinic Visit Improves Chronic Pain Patient Satisfaction with Proposed Treatment Plans

OBJECTIVE

This study sought to evaluate if actively informing new chronic pain patients about treatment options and setting realistic expectations for care, through the use of a pre-visit informational handout prior to the first clinic visit, improved patient satisfaction with subsequently proposed treatment plans.

METHODS

The study was divided into two 3-month periods. During the first 3 months, with our current pain clinic practices in place, new patients (n = 147) were given surveys to establish a baseline of patient satisfaction with treatment plans proposed on their first visit. During the second 3 months, a different group of new patients (n = 156) was given a detailed informational handout which described our clinic's multimodal approach to pain management and therapeutic expectations prior to their visit with a provider. Patient satisfaction with subsequently proposed treatment plans was then assessed and compared with the baseline group.

RESULTS

The average patient satisfaction score for the group of patients given the informational handout was 4.21 (on a 5-point Likert scale), compared to an average score of 3.25 for the baseline group (P < .0001, unpaired t-test). 77.6% of patients given the informational handout said their proposed treatment plan met their expectations compared to 46.3% of patients in the baseline group (χ2= 31.61, two-tailed P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patient satisfaction with proposed chronic pain treatment plans was improved when clinic approaches to pain were explicitly outlined and therapeutic expectations were clearly established in the form of an informational handout at the outset of the first visit.

Healthcare resource utilisation and cost analysis associated with opioid analgesic use for non-cancer pain: A case-control, retrospective study between 2005 and 2015

Objective

To examine differences in healthcare utilisation and costs associated with opioid prescriptions for non-cancer pain issued in primary care.

Method

A longitudinal, case-control study retrospectively examined Welsh healthcare data for the period 1 January 2005–31 December 2015. Data were extracted from the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) databank. Subjects, aged 18 years and over, were included if their primary care record contained at least one of six overarching pain diagnoses during the study period. Subjects were excluded if their record also contained a cancer diagnosis in that time or the year prior to the study period. Case subjects also received at least one prescription for an opioid analgesic. Controls were matched by gender, age, pain-diagnosis and socioeconomic deprivation. Healthcare use included primary care visits, emergency department (ED) and outpatient (OPD) attendances, inpatient (IP) admissions and length of stay. Cost analysis for healthcare utilisation used nationally derived unit costs for 2015. Differences between case and control subjects for resource use and costs were analysed and further stratified by gender, prescribing persistence (PP) and deprivation.

Results

Data from 3,286,215 individuals were examined with 657,243 receiving opioids. Case subjects averaged 5 times more primary care visits, 2.8 times more OPD attendances, 3 times more ED visits and twice as many IN admissions as controls. Prescription persistence over 6 months and greater deprivation were associated with significantly greater utilisation of healthcare resources. Opioid prescribing was associated with 69% greater average healthcare costs than in control subjects. National Health Service (NHS) healthcare service costs for people with common, pain-associated diagnoses, receiving opioid analgesics were estimated to be £0.9billion per year between 2005 and 2015.

Conclusion

Receipt of opioid prescriptions was associated with significantly greater healthcare utilisation and accompanying costs in all sectors. Extended prescribing durations are particularly important to address and should be considered at the point of initiation.

Efficacy of metamizole versus ibuprofen and a short educational intervention versus standard care in acute and subacute low back pain: a study protocol of a randomised, multicentre, factorial trial (EMISI trial)

INTRODUCTION

Low back pain (LBP) is among the top three most common diseases worldwide, resulting in a life with pain-related disability. To date, no study has assessed the efficacy of metamizole (dipyrone), a non-opioid analgesic and antipyretic prodrug compared with the conventional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug ibuprofen, in patients with an acute LBP episode. Further, it is unclear, whether a short educational intervention is superior to usual care alone.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study is to assess first, whether metamizole is non-inferior to ibuprofen in a new episode of acute or subacute LBP. Second, we aim to assess whether a short educational intervention including evidence-based patient information on the nature of LBP is superior to usual care alone.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

An investigator-initiated multicentre, randomised, double blind trial using a factorial design will be performed. A total of 120 participants with a new episode of LBP will be recruited from GP practices, outpatient clinics and from emergency departments, and randomised into four different treatment groups: ibuprofen alone, ibuprofen and short intervention, metamizole alone, metamizole and short intervention. The primary endpoint for the medical treatment will be change in pain assessed on an 11-point Numeric Rating Scale after 14 days. The primary outcome for the short intervention will be change in the Core Outcome Measures Index assessed after 42 days.

ETHICS, DISSEMINATION AND FUNDING

This study has been approved by the responsible Ethics Board (Ethikkommission Bern/2018-01986) and the Swiss Agency for Therapeutic Products (Swissmedic/2019DR4002). Results will be published in open access policy peer-reviewed journals. The study is funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (grant number 32 003B-179346).

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04111315.

Opioids and Chronic Pain: An Analytic Review of the Clinical Evidence

We conducted an analytic review of the clinical scientific literature bearing on the use of opioids for treatment of chronic non-cancer pain in the United States. There is substantial, albeit not definitive, scientific evidence of the effectiveness of opioids in treating pain and of high variability in opioid dose requirements and side effects. The estimated risk of death from opioid treatment involving doses above 100 MMED is ~0.25%/year. Multiple large studies refute the concept that short-term use of opioids to treat acute pain predisposes to development of opioid use disorder. The prevalence of opioid use disorder associated with prescription opioids is likely &lt;3%. Morbidity, mortality, and financial costs of inadequate treatment of the 18 million Americans with moderate to severe chronic pain are high. Because of the absence of comparative effectiveness studies, there are no scientific grounds for considering alternative non-pharmacologic treatments as an adequate substitute for opioid therapy but these treatments might serve to augment opioid therapy, thereby reducing dosage. There are reasons to question the ostensible risks of co-prescription of opioids and benzodiazepines. As the causes of the opioid crisis have come into focus, it has become clear that the crisis resides predominantly in the streets and that efforts to curtail it by constraining opioid treatment in the clinic are unlikely to succeed.

Tapering of prescribed opioids in patients with long-term non-malignant pain (TOPIO)-efficacy and effects on pain, pain cognitions, and quality of life: a study protocol for a randomized controlled clinical trial with a 12-month follow-up

Background

Opioids are still widely prescribed to long-term pain patients although they are no longer recommended for long-term treatments due to poor evidence for long-term efficacy, risks of serious side effects, and the possibility of inducing opioid hyperalgesia. In a Cochrane study from 2017, the authors identified an urgent need for more randomized controlled trials investigating the efficiency and effects of opioid tapering.

The study aimed to assess (1) the efficiency of a structured intervention in causing stable reductions of opioid consumption in a population with long-term non-malignant pain and (2) effects on pain, pain cognitions, physical and mental health, quality of life, and functioning in response to opioid tapering.

Methods

The study is a randomized controlled trial. The sample size was set to a total of 140 individuals after estimation of power and dropout. Participants will be recruited from a population with long-term non-malignant pain who will be randomly allocated to (1) the start of tapering immediately or (2) the control group who return to usual care and will commence tapering of opioids 4 months later. A 12-month follow-up is included.

When all follow-ups are closed, data from the Swedish drug register of the National Board of Health and Welfare will be collected and individual mean daily opioid dose in morphine equivalents will be calculated at three time points: baseline, 4 months, and 12 months after the start of the intervention. At the same time points, participants fill out the following questionnaires: Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK), Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire (CPAQ-8), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and RAND-36. At baseline and follow-up, a clinical assessment of opioid use disorder is performed.

Discussion

A better understanding of the efficiency and effects of opioid tapering could possibly facilitate attempts to taper opioid treatments, which might prove beneficial for both the individual and society.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03485430. Retrospectively registered on 26 March 2018, first release date. “Tapering of Long-term Opioid Therapy in Chronic Pain Population. RCT with 12 Months Follow up (TOPIO).” First patient in trial 22 March 2018.

State Variation in Chronic Opioid Use in Long-Term Care Nursing Home Residents

OBJECTIVE

Policies and regulations on opioid use have evolved from being primarily state-to federally based. We examined the trends and variation in chronic opioid use among states and nursing homes.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

We used the nursing home Minimum Data Set and Medicare claims from 2014 to 2018 and included long-term care nursing home residents from each year who had at least 120 days of consecutive stay.

MEASUREMENTS

Chronic opioid use was defined as use for ≥90 days. Three-level hierarchical logistic regression models (resident, nursing home, state) were constructed to estimate intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) at the state level and at the nursing home level. The ICC shows the proportion of variation in chronic opioid use that is attributable to states or nursing homes. All models were constructed separately for each calendar year and controlled for resident, nursing home, and state characteristics.

RESULTS

We included 3,245,714 nursing home stays from 2014 to 2018, representing 1,502,131 unique residents. The stays ranged from 676,413 in 2014 to 594,874 in 2018, with residents contributing a maximum of 1 stay per year. Chronic opioid use among nursing home residents declined from 14.1% in 2014 to 11.4% in 2018. The variation (ICC) in chronic opioid use among states declined from 2.5% in 2014 to 1.7% in 2018. In contrast, the variation (ICC) among nursing homes increased from 5.6% in 2014 to 6.5% in 2018.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Variation in chronic opioid use declined by one-third at the state level but not at the nursing home level. National guidelines on opioid use and federal policies on opioid use may have contributed to reducing state-level variation in chronic opioid use.

Opioid Prescriptions in Chronic Pain Rehabilitation. A Prospective Study on the Prevalence and Association between Individual Patient Characteristics and Opioids

While against recommendations, long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) for chronic pain is common. This study aimed to describe the prevalence of opioid prescriptions and to study the association of patient characteristics (demographics, pain characteristics, anxiety, depressive symptoms and pain coping) with future LTOT. The sample included N = 1334 chronic musculoskeletal pain patients, aged 18–65, who were assessed for Interdisciplinary Multimodal Pain Rehabilitation (IMMR) in Swedish specialist rehabilitation. Prescriptions were tracked across a two-year target period after assessment. In total, 9100 opioid prescriptions were prescribed to 55% of the sample (M_median = 6, IQR = 14). Prediction of LTOT was analyzed separately for those who did (24%) and did not (76%) receive IMMR. The odds of receiving opioids was similar for these subsamples, after controlling for differences in baseline characteristics. In both samples, there were significant associations between patient characteristics and future opioid prescriptions. Dysfunctional pain coping was a unique predictor of LTOT in those who received IMMR while pain intensity and depressive symptoms were unique predictors in those who did not receive IMMR. The results underscore that opioid treatment is common among patients in chronic pain rehabilitation and relates to pain and psychological factors. Understanding in detail why these factors relate to opioid prescription patterns is an important future study area as it is a prerequisite for better management and fundamental for preventing overuse.

A Systematic Review of the Cost-Utility of Spinal Cord Stimulation for Persistent Low Back Pain in Patients With Failed Back Surgery Syndrome

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES

To review the literature surrounding the cost-effectiveness of implanting spinal cord stimulators for failed back surgery syndrome.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted inclusive of all publications in the Medline database and Cochrane CENTRAL trials register within the last 10 years (English language only) assessing the cost-effectiveness of Spinal Cord Stimulator device implantation (SCSdi) in patients with previous lumbar fusion surgery.

RESULTS

The majority of reviewed publications that analyzed cost-effectiveness of SCSdi compared to conventional medical management (CMM) or re-operation in patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) showed an overall increase in direct medical costs; these increased costs were found in nearly all cases to be offset by significant improvements in patient quality of life. The cost required to achieve these increases in quality adjusted life years (QALY) falls well below $25 000/QALY, a conservative estimate of willingness to pay.

CONCLUSIONS

The data suggest that SCSdi provides both superior outcomes and a lower incremental cost: effectiveness ratio (ICER) compared to CMM and/or re-operation in patients with FBSS. These findings are in spite of the fact that the majority of studies reviewed were agnostic to the type of device or innervation utilized in SCSdi. Newer devices utilizing burst or higher frequency stimulation have demonstrated their superiority over traditional SCSdi via randomized clinical trials and may provide lower ICERs.

Efficacy and safety of fasinumab in patients with chronic low back pain: a phase II/III randomised clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

To study the efficacy and safety of fasinumab in moderate-to-severe, chronic low back pain (CLBP).

METHODS

In this phase II/III, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, patients with CLBP aged ≥35 years with inadequate pain relief/intolerance to acetaminophen, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and opioids were randomised to fasinumab 6 or 9 mg subcutaneous every 4 weeks (Q4W), 9 mg intravenous every 8 weeks (Q8W) or placebo. Primary endpoint was change from baseline to week 16 in average daily low back pain intensity (LBPI) numeric rating score. Key secondary efficacy variables included Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and Patient Global Assessment (PGA). The results are based on a modified intent-to-treat analysis of 563/800 planned patients when enrolment was stopped early given emerging signals of joint risk in other osteoarthritis (OA) studies at doses being tested here.

RESULTS

Significant placebo-adjusted LBPI reductions at week 16 were observed for fasinumab 9 mg Q4W and Q8W (least squares mean (standard error) -0.7 (0.3); both nominal p<0.05), but not 6 mg (-0.3 (0.3); p=0.39). RMDQ and PGA improvements to week 16 were greatest for fasinumab 9 mg intravenous. Numerically greater efficacy occurred in patients with, versus those without, peripheral OA (pOA) over 16 weeks. Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) occurred in 274/418 (65.6%) patients in the combined fasinumab groups and 94/140 (67.1%) placebo patients. Joint AEs, mostly rapid progressive OA type 1, were more frequent in the combined fasinumab groups (19 events in 16 patients (3.8%) vs 1 event in 1 patient (0.7%) for placebo); all except one occurred in pOA patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Fasinumab highest doses, but not lower dose, improved both CLBP pain and function. Most joint AEs occurred in pOA patients, consistent with earlier findings in symptomatic OA. Further study is needed of patients with CLBP with and without pOA to determine optimal benefit-risk.

How do contraindications to non-opioid analgesics and opioids affect the likelihood that patients with back pain diagnoses in the primary care setting receive an opioid prescription? An observational cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Given the risks of opioids, clinicians are under growing pressure to treat pain with non-opioid medications. Yet non-opioid analgesics such as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have their own risks: patients with kidney disease or gastrointestinal diseases can experience serious adverse events. We examined the likelihood that patients with back pain diagnoses and contraindications to NSAIDs and opioids received an opioid prescription in primary care.

METHODS

We identified office visits for back pain from 2012 to 2017 and sampled the first office visit per patient per year (N = 24,543 visits). We created indicators reflecting contraindications for NSAIDs (kidney, liver, cardiovascular/cerebrovascular, and gastrointestinal diseases; concurrent or chronic use of anticoagulants/antiplatelets, chronic corticosteroid use) and opioids (depression, anxiety, substance use (SUD) and bipolar disorders, and concurrent benzodiazepines) and estimated four logistic regression models, with the one model including all patient visits and models 2-4 stratifying for previous opioid use. We estimated the population attributable risk for each contraindication.

RESULTS

In our model with all patients-visits, patients received an opioid prescription at 4% of visits. The predicted probability (PP) of receiving an opioid was 4% without kidney disease vs. 7% with kidney disease; marginal effect (ME): 3%; 95%CI: 1-4%). For chronic or concurrent anticoagulant/antiplatelet prescriptions, the PPs were 4% vs. 6% (ME: 2%; 95%CI: 1-3%). For concurrent benzodiazepines, the PPs were 4% vs. 11% (ME: 7%, 95%CI: 5-9%) and for SUD, the PPs were 4% vs. 5% (ME: 1%, 95%CI: 0-3%). For the model including patients with previous long-term opioid use, the PPs for concurrent benzodiazepines were 25% vs. 24% (ME: -1%; 95%CI: - 18-16%). The population attributable risk (PAR) for NSAID and opioid contraindications was small. For kidney disease, the PAR was 0.16% (95%CI: 0.08-0.23%), 0.44% (95%CI: 0.30-0.58%) for anticoagulants and antiplatelets, 0.13% for substance use (95%CI: 0.03-0.22%) and 0.20% for concurrent benzodiazepine use (95%CI: 0.13-0.26%).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with diagnoses of kidney disease and concurrent use of anticoagulants/antiplatelet medications had a higher probability of receiving an opioid prescription at a primary care visit for low back pain, but these conditions do not explain a large proportion of the opioid prescriptions.

Examining opioid prescribing trends for non-cancer pain using an estimated oral morphine equivalence measure: a retrospective cohort study between 2005 and 2015

Background

Over the past 20 years prescription of opioid medicines has markedly increased in the UK, despite a lack of supporting evidence for use in commonly occurring, painful conditions. Prescribing is often monitored by counting numbers of prescriptions dispensed, but this may not provide an accurate picture of clinical practice.

Aim

To use an estimated oral morphine equivalent (OMEQ_e) dose to describe trends in opioid prescribing in non-cancer pain, and explore if opioid burden differed by deprivation status.

Design & setting

A retrospective cohort study using cross-sectional and longitudinal trend analyses of opioid prescribing data from Welsh Primary Care General Practices (PCGP) took place. Data were used from the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) databank.

Method

An OMEQ_e measure was developed and used to describe trends in opioid burden over the study period. OMEQ_e burden was stratified by eight drug groups, which was based on usage and deprivation.

Results

An estimated 643 436 843 milligrams (mg) OMEQ_e was issued during the study. Annual number of prescriptions increased 44% between 2005 and 2015, while total daily OMEQ_e per 1000 population increased by 95%. The most deprived areas of Wales had 100 711 696 mg more OMEQ_e prescribed than the least deprived over the study period.

Conclusion

Over the study period, OMEQ_e burden nearly doubled, with disproportionate OMEQ_e prescribed in the most deprived communities. Using OMEQ_e provides an alternative measure of prescribing and allows easier comparison of the contribution different drugs make to the overall opioid burden.

Increasing tramadol utilisation under strict regulatory control of opioid prescribing - A cross-sectional study in Taiwan from 2002 through 2016

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Prescribing of opioids to patients with non-cancer pain is strictly regulated in Taiwan, but tramadol is not included in the regulation on chronic opioid prescribing. This study aims to identify the utilization trend of prescribing tramadol and other opioid analgesics and investigate the influence of government regulation on opioid prescribing in Taiwan.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study used the Taiwan National Health Insurance claims database and the cancer registry from 2001 through 2016. The annual number of adult opioid users, opioid utilization (Defined Daily Doses [DDDs]/1000 registrants) and the number of supply days were enumerated for each calendar year and stratified by cancer or non-cancer patients. Descriptive statistics were used to report the trends in utilization for each calendar year.

RESULTS

The regulation strictly limited persistent use of opioids for patients with non-cancer pain, of which only a small proportion of fentanyl (20%) and morphine (<2%) users were prescribed with an annual number of supply days greater than 28 days. The annual utilization of morphine (6.4-53.5 vs. 1.1 to 9.6 DDD/1000 registrants) and fentanyl (8.3-37.0 vs. 0.16 to 1.8 DDD/1000 registrants) to patients with cancer was consistently higher than patients without cancer. In contrast to morphine and fentanyl, the utilization of tramadol prescribed to patients without cancer increased 92.2-fold (3.7-341.2 DDD/1000 registrants) from 2002 to 2016.

CONCLUSION

The regulation in Taiwan limited the prescribing of selective opioids for patients with non-cancer pain and the substitution of tramadol for other opioids may have safety implications.

From Tramadol to Methadone: Opioids in the Treatment of Pain and Dyspnea in Pediatric Palliative Care

BACKGROUND

More than 15,000 children die annually in the United States due to an underlying life-limiting disease and the majority of those children experience distressing symptoms, which are not adequately relieved, such as pain and dyspnea. Multimodal analgesia, that is multiple agents, interventions, rehabilitation, psychological modalities, and integrative (nonpharmacologic) therapies, act synergistically for more effective pediatric pain and symptom control with fewer side effects than a single analgesic or modality. However, opioids, such as morphine, fentanyl, hydromorphone, oxycodone, and methadone (in the United Kingdom: diamorphine) remain the mainstay medication to effectively treat pain and dyspnea in children with serious illness.

METHODS

This article reviews commonly used opioids in Pediatric Palliative Care, which a special emphasis on 2 potentially particularly effective multimechanistic opioids: tramadol and methadone.

RESULTS

Methadone, due to its multimechanistic action profile, is possibly among the most effective and most underutilized opioid analgesics in children with severe unrelieved pain at end of life. However, methadone should not be prescribed by those unfamiliar with its use: Its effects should be closely monitored for several days, particularly when it is first started and after any dose changes.

CONCLUSIONS

Tramadol appears to play a key role in treating episodes of inconsolability in children with progressive neurologic, metabolic, or chromosomally based condition with impairment of the central nervous system. However, the recent 2017 United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warning against pediatric use of tramadol does not seem to be based on clinical evidence, and therefore puts children at risk for unrelieved pain or increased respiratory depression.

Inductive Risk and OxyContin: The Ethics of Evidence and Post-Market Surveillance of Pharmaceuticals in Canada

The argument from inductive risk claims that judgments about the moral severity of errors are relevant to decisions about what should count as sufficient evidence for accepting claims. While this idea has been explored in connection with evidence required for the approval of pharmaceuticals, the role of inductive risk in the post-approval process has been largely neglected. In this article, we examine the ethics of inductive risk in connection with revisions to the product monograph for OxyContin in Canada, which understates the risks of addiction and abuse associated with this drug. Using the concept of inductive risk, we consider what evidence should have been sufficient for Health Canada (HC) to revise the product monograph for OxyContin. Given the stakes involved, we argue that a less strict standard of evidence would have been appropriate, yet HC in fact took the opposite course, insisting upon a higher standard of evidence than it normally requires. In addition to providing a novel perspective on the opioid crisis in Canada, this article contributes to existing philosophical work by demonstrating that inductive risks in the post-approval stage are important and linked to pre-approval inductive risks.

Association Between Opioid Use and Patient-Reported Outcomes in a Randomized Trial Evaluating Basivertebral Nerve Ablation for the Relief of Chronic Low Back Pain

BACKGROUND

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a primary indication for opioid therapy.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the hypothesis that CLBP patients reporting reduced opioid use have superior functional outcomes following basivertebral nerve (BVN) radiofrequency ablation.

METHODS

This post hoc analysis from a sham-controlled trial examined short-acting opioid use from baseline through 1 yr. Opioid use was stratified into 3 groups by two blinded external reviewers. Two-sample t-tests were used to compare Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) measurements between those patients who increased or decreased their opioid usage compared to baseline.

RESULTS

Actively treated patients with decreased opioid use at 12 mo had a mean ODI improvement of 24.9 ± 16.0 (n = 27) compared to 7.3 ± 9.8 (n = 18) for patients reporting increased opioid use (P < .001). In the sham arm, the improvements in ODI were 17.4 ± 16.1 (n = 19) and 1.2 ± 14.3 (n = 5; P = .053) for the patients reporting decreased vs increased opioid usage, respectively. Actively treated patients reporting decreased opioid use had a mean improvement in VAS of 3.3 ± 2.5 (n = 27) compared to 0.6 ± 1.8 (n = 18) for patients reporting increased opioid use (P < .001). In the sham arm, the improvements in VAS were 2.5 ± 2.6 (n = 19) and 1.4 ± 1.9 (n = 5; P = .374) for patients reporting decreased vs increased opioid use, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Subjects undergoing BVN ablation who decreased opioid use had greater improvement in ODI and VAS scores compared with those reporting increased opioid usage. There is an association between functional benefit from BVN ablation and reduced opioid use.

Does Offering Battlefield Acupuncture Lead to Subsequent Use of Traditional Acupuncture?

OBJECTIVES

Veterans Health Administration encourages auricular acupuncture (Battlefield Acupuncture/BFA) as a nonpharmacologic approach to pain management. Qualitative reports highlighted a "gateway hypothesis": providing BFA can lead to additional nonpharmacologic treatments. This analysis examines subsequent use of traditional acupuncture.

RESEARCH DESIGN

Cohort study of Veterans treated with BFA and a propensity score matched comparison group with a 3-month follow-up period to identify subsequent use of traditional acupuncture. Matching variables included pain, comorbidity, and demographics, with further adjustment in multivariate regression analysis.

SUBJECTS

We identified 41,234 patients who used BFA across 130 Veterans Health Administration medical facilities between October 1, 2016 and March 31, 2019. These patients were matched 2:1 on Veterans who used VA care but not BFA during the same period resulting in a population of 24,037 BFA users and a comparison cohort of 40,358 non-BFA users. Patients with prior use of traditional acupuncture were excluded.

RESULTS

Among Veterans receiving BFA, 9.5% subsequently used traditional acupuncture compared with 0.9% of non-BFA users (P<0.001). In adjusted analysis, accounting for patient characteristics and regional availability of traditional acupuncture, patients who used BFA had 10.9 times greater odds (95% confidence interval, 8.67-12.24) of subsequent traditional acupuncture use.

CONCLUSIONS

Providing BFA, which is easy to administer during a patient visit and does not require providers be formally certified, led to a substantial increase in use of traditional acupuncture. These findings suggest that the value of offering BFA may not only be its immediate potential for pain relief but also subsequent engagement in additional therapies.

Effects of open-label placebo on pain, functional disability, and spine mobility in patients with chronic back pain: a randomized controlled trial

Chronic back pain (CBP) is a major global health problem, while its treatment is hampered by a lack of efficacy and restricted safety profile of common frontline therapies. The present trial aims to determine whether a 3-week open-label placebo treatment reduces pain intensity and subjective and objective functional disability in patients with CBP. This randomized controlled trial, following a pretest-posttest design, enrolled 127 patients with CBP (pain duration >12 weeks) from the Back Pain Center, Neurology, University Hospital Essen, Germany. Patients randomized to the open-label placebo group received a 3-week open-label placebo treatment. Patients in the treatment as usual (TAU) group received no intervention. Both groups continued TAU. Primary outcome was the change in pain intensity. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported functional disability and objective measures of spine mobility and depression, anxiety, and stress. One hundred twenty two patients with CBP were randomized to the open-label placebo group (N = 63) or TAU group (N = 59). Open-label placebo application led to a larger reduction of pain intensity (-0.62 ± 0.23 vs 0.11 ± 0.17, all M ± SE, P = 0.001, d = -0.44) as well as patient-reported functional disability (3.21 ± 1.59 vs 0.65 ± 1.15, P = 0.020, d = -0.45) and depression scores (-1.07 ± 0.55 vs 0.37 ± 0.39, P = 0.010, d = -0.50) compared with TAU only. Open-label placebo treatment did not affect objective mobility parameters, anxiety and stress. Our study demonstrates that a 3-week open-label placebo treatment is safe, well tolerated and reduces pain, disability, and depressive symptoms in CBP. Trial registration: German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00012712.

Opioid Exposure Negatively Affects Antidepressant Response to Venlafaxine in Older Adults with Chronic Low Back Pain and Depression

OBJECTIVE

Serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) are commonly co-prescribed with opioids for chronic pain. The purpose of this study was to describe pain and mood response to venlafaxine among older adults with chronic low back pain (CLBP) and depression relative to opioid exposure.

DESIGN

Secondary analyses were collected from a randomized clinical trial testing a stepped-care approach to comorbid pain and depression in older patients: the Addressing Depression and Pain Together study (ADAPT: 2010-2016).

SETTING

University-based late-life mental health research clinic.

SUBJECTS

Two hundred twenty-seven adults aged 65+ years with CLBP and depression.

METHODS

Participants received six weeks of lower-dose venlafaxine (≤150 mg/d). Pain and depression were measured each week. Response for both pain and depression at the end of six weeks was defined by a ≥30% improvement on a 0-20 numeric rating scale for low back pain and a Patient Health Questionnaire-9 score ≤5. Opioid exposure was analyzed as prescribed (yes or no) and by morphine equivalent dosing (MED).

RESULTS

Patients co-prescribed an opioid were less likely to report a pain response to venlafaxine. MED was negatively correlated with pain response. Depression response was not impacted.

CONCLUSIONS

Opioids are negatively associated with older adults' early analgesic response to lower-dose venlafaxine. These findings suggest that clinicians may wish to consider either nonopioid or alternative antidepressant approaches to pain management in these complex patients. It is reassuring that opioids do not prevent depression response. Future research should examine both longer duration of treatment and a wider range of doses.

Opioid Use among Patients with Early Inflammatory Arthritides Compared to the General Population

OBJECTIVE

To assess to what extent the worldwide opioid epidemic affects Finnish patients with early inflammatory arthritis (IA).

METHODS

From the nationwide register maintained by the Social Insurance Institution of Finland, we collected all incident adult patients with newly onset seropositive and seronegative rheumatoid arthritis (RA+ and RA-) and undifferentiated arthritis (UA) between 2010 and 2014. For each case, 3 general population (GP) controls were matched according to age, sex, and place of residence. Drug purchases between 2009 and 2015 were evaluated 1 year before and after the index date (date of IA diagnosis), further dividing this time into 3-month periods.

RESULTS

A total of 12,115 patients (66% women) were identified. At least 1 opioid purchase was done by 23-27% of the patients 1 year before and 15-20% one year after the index date. Relative risk (RR) of opioid purchases compared to GP was highest during the last 3-month time period before the index date [RR 2.81 (95% CI 2.55-3.09), 3.06 (2.68-3.49), and 4.04 (3.51-4.65) for RA+, RA-, and UA, respectively] but decreased after the index date [RR 1.38 (1.23-1.58), 1.91 (1.63-2.24), and 2.51 (2.15-2.93)]. Up to 4% of the patients were longterm users both before and after the diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

During 2009-15 in Finland, opioid use peaked just before the diagnosis of IA but decreased rapidly after that, suggesting effective disease control, especially in seropositive RA. Further, opioids were used to treat arthritis pain of patients with incident RA and UA less often than previously reported from other countries.

Opioid epidemic: Does rheumatological practice favors risk for patients? National survey on rheumatologists' opioid prescriptions and compliance to guidelines for strong opioid prescription

OBJECTIVES

Given the scope of rheumatology and its prevalence of pain, it seems needed that a study should focus on prescription habits, in the midst of the international opioid epidemic and given the moderate efficacy of strong opioids in chronic musculoskeletal conditions. We compared rheumatologists' opioid prescribing patterns in non-cancer pain with recommended practice.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional study of the French health insurance database, including all patients aged 16 years or over reimbursed for at least one strong opioid prescription from a rheumatologist in 2015. A nationwide survey of all registered rheumatologists in France was performed with a 47-item questionnaire in June 2015.

RESULTS

Only 2.4% of the patients receiving a strong opioid in 2015 (n=700,946) had at least one prescription from a rheumatologist. Rheumatologists prescribed mostly morphine, and significantly less oxycodone and fentanyl (P<0.00001) than other specialists. Rheumatologists prescribed a mean of 35.8mg morphine equivalent/day. A response rate of 33.7% was obtained to the questionnaire. Acute musculoskeletal pain was the principal condition for strong opioids prescription, with 94.5% re-evaluating opioid treatment within two weeks of initiation. For efficacy, 80% said that they stopped treatment if no benefit was observed after a test period (mean=1.2 months). Rheumatologists with pain management training were significantly more likely to evaluate pain before prescribing strong opioids (P=0.001), evaluate efficacy within three months (P=0.01) and screen for risk factors for misuse at initiation (P<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

For non-cancer pain, rheumatologists generally prescribe opioids for short periods, at low doses, mostly according to national recommendations. Pain education strongly affected opioid prescription by rheumatologists.