"The lesser of two evils": a framework analysis of consumers' perspectives on opioid deprescribing and the development of opioid deprescribing guidelines

Patient Perspectives on Mental Health and Pain Management Support Needed Versus Received During Opioid Deprescribing

Prescription opioid tapering has increased significantly over the last decade. Evidence suggests that tapering too quickly or without appropriate support may unintentionally harm patients. The aim of this analysis was to understand patients' experiences with opioid tapering, including support received or not received for pain control or mental health. Patients with evidence of opioid tapering from 6 health care systems participated in semi-structured, in-depth interviews; family members of suicide decedents with evidence of opioid tapering were also interviewed. Interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. Participants included 176 patients and 16 family members. Results showed that 24% of the participants felt their clinicians checked in with them about their taper experiences while 41% reported their clinicians did not. A majority (68%) of individuals who experienced suicide behavior during tapering reported that clinicians did check in about mood and mental health changes specifically; however, 27% of that group reported no such check-in. More individuals reported negative experiences (than positive) with pain management clinics-where patients are often referred for tapering and pain management support. Patients reporting successful tapering experiences named shared decision-making and ability to adjust taper speed or pause tapering as helpful components of care. Fifty-six percent of patients reported needing more support during tapering, including more empathy and compassion (48%) and an individualized approach to tapering (41%). Patient-centered approaches to tapering include reaching out to monitor how patients are doing, involving patients in decision-making, supporting mental health changes, and allowing for flexibility in the tapering pace. PERSPECTIVE: Patients tapering prescription opioids desire more provider-initiated communication including checking in about pain, setting expectations for withdrawal and mental health-related changes, and providing support for mental health. Patients preferred opportunities to share decisions about taper speed and to have flexibility with pausing the taper as needed.

Government Direct-to-Consumer Education to Reduce Prescription Opioid Use: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Direct-to-consumer education reduces chronic sedative use. The effectiveness of this approach for prescription opioids among patients with chronic noncancer pain remains untested.

Objectives

To evaluate the effectiveness of a government-led educational information brochure mailed to community-dwelling, long-term opioid consumers to reduce prescription opioid use compared with usual care.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted from July 2018 to January 2019 in Manitoba, Canada. All adults with long-term opioid prescriptions were enrolled (n = 4225). Participants were identified via the Manitoba Drug Program Information Network. Individuals receiving palliative care or with a diagnosis of cancer or dementia were excluded. Data were analyzed from July 2019 to March 2020.

Intervention

Participants were clustered according to their primary care clinic and randomized to the intervention (a codesigned direct-to-consumer educational brochure sent by mail) or usual care (comparator group).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcome was discontinuation of opioid prescriptions at the participant level after 6 months, ascertained by pharmacy drug claims. Secondary outcomes included dose reduction (in morphine milligram equivalents [MME]) and/or therapeutic switch. Reduction in opioid use was assessed using generalized estimating equations to account for clustering, with prespecified subgroup analyses by age and sex. Analysis was intention to treat.

Results

Of 4206 participants, 2409 (57.3%) were male; mean (SD) age was 60.0 (14.4) years. Mean (SD) baseline opioid use was comparable between groups (intervention, 157.7 [179.7] MME/d; control, 153.4 [181.8] MME/d). After 6 months, 235 of 2136 participants (11.0%) in 127 clusters in the intervention group no longer filled opioid prescriptions compared with 228 of 2070 (11.0%) in 124 clusters in the comparator group (difference, 0.0%; 95% CI, -1.9% to 1.9%). More participants in the intervention group than in the control group reduced their dose (1410 [66.0%] vs 1307 [63.1%]; difference, 2.8% [95% CI, 0.0%-5.7%]). Receipt of the brochure led to greater dose reductions for participants who were male (difference, 3.9%; 95% CI, 0.1%-7.7%), aged 18 to 64 years (difference, 3.7%; 95% CI, 0.2%-7.2%), or living in urban areas (difference, 5.9%; 95% CI, 1.9%-9.9%) compared with usual care.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cluster randomized clinical trial, no significant difference in the prevalence of opioid cessation was observed after 6 months between the intervention and usual care groups; however, the intervention resulted in more adults reducing their opioid dose compared with usual care.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03400384.

Impact of Opioid Dose Reductions on Patient-Reported Mental Health and Suicide-Related Behavior and Relationship to Patient Choice in Tapering Decisions

Mental health and suicide-related harms resulting from prescription opioid tapering are poorly documented and understood. Six health systems contributed opioid prescribing data from January 2016 to April 2020. Patients 18 to 70 years old with evidence of opioid tapering participated in semi-structured interviews. Individuals who experienced suicide attempts were oversampled. Family members of suicide decedents who had experienced opioid tapering were also interviewed. Interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. The study participants included 176 patients and 16 family members. Patients were 68% female, 80% White, and 15% Hispanic, mean age 58. All family members were female spouses of White, non-Hispanic male decedents. Among the subgroup (n = 60) who experienced a documented suicide attempt, reported experiencing suicidal ideation during tapering, or were family members of suicide decedents, 40% reported that opioid tapering exacerbated previously recognized mental health issues, and 25% reported that tapering triggered new-onset mental health concerns. Among participants with suicide behavior, 47% directly attributed it to opioid tapering. Common precipitants included increased pain, reduced life engagement, sleep problems, withdrawal, relationship dissolution, and negative consequences of opioid substitution with other substances for pain relief. Most respondents reporting suicide behavior felt that the decision to taper was made by the health care system or a clinician (67%) whereas patients not reporting suicide behavior were more likely to report it was their own decision (42%). This study describes patient-reported mental health deterioration or suicide behavior while tapering prescription opioids. Clinicians should screen for, monitor, and treat suicide behavior while assisting patients in tapering opioids. PERSPECTIVE: This work describes changes in patient-reported mental health and suicide behavior while tapering prescription opioids. Recommendations for improving care include mental health and suicide risk screening during and following opioid tapering.

Older Adult and Primary Care Practitioner Perspectives on Using, Prescribing, and Deprescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain

Importance

Guidelines recommend deprescribing opioids in older adults due to risk of adverse effects, yet little is known about patient-clinician opioid deprescribing conversations.

Objective

To understand the experiences of older adults and primary care practitioners (PCPs) with using opioids for chronic pain and discussing opioid deprescribing.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This qualitative study conducted semistructured individual qualitative interviews with 18 PCPs and 29 adults 65 years or older prescribed opioids between September 15, 2022, and April 26, 2023, at a Boston-based academic medical center. The PCPs were asked about their experiences prescribing and deprescribing opioids to older adults. Patients were asked about their experiences using and discussing opioid medications with PCPs.

Main Outcome and Measures

Shared and conflicting themes between patients and PCPs regarding perceptions of opioid prescribing and barriers to deprescribing.

Results

In total, 18 PCPs (12 [67%] younger that 50 years; 10 [56%] female; and 14 [78%] based at an academic practice) and 29 patients (mean [SD] age, 72 [5] years; 19 [66%] female) participated. Participants conveyed that conversations between PCPs and patients on opioid use for chronic pain were typically challenging and that conversations regarding opioid risks and deprescribing were uncommon. Three common themes related to experiences with opioids for chronic pain emerged in both patient and PCP interviews: opioids were used as a last resort, opioids were used to improve function and quality of life, and trust was vital in a clinician-patient relationship. Patients and PCPs expressed conflicting views on risks of opioids, with patients focusing on addiction and PCPs focusing on adverse drug events. Both groups felt deprescribing conversations were often unsuccessful but had conflicting views on barriers to successful conversations. Patients felt deprescribing was often unnecessary unless an adverse event occurred, and many patients had prior negative experiences tapering. The PCPs described gaps in knowledge on how to taper, a lack of clinical access to monitor patients during tapering, and concerns about patient resistance.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this qualitative study, PCPs and older adults receiving long-term opioid therapy viewed the use of opioids as a beneficial last resort for treating chronic pain but expressed dissonant views on the risks associated with opioids, which made deprescribing conversations challenging. Interventions, such as conversation aids, are needed to support collaborative discussion about deprescribing opioids.

Context matters: using an Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework to develop and encourage uptake of opioid deprescribing guideline recommendations at the point-of-care

OBJECTIVES

To describe the development and use of an Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework when formulating recommendations for the Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline for Deprescribing Opioid Analgesics.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Evidence was derived from an overview of systematic reviews and qualitative studies conducted with healthcare professionals and people who take opioids for pain. A multidisciplinary guideline development group conducted extensive EtD framework review and iterative refinement to ensure that guideline recommendations captured contextual factors relevant to the guideline target setting and audience.

RESULTS

The guideline development group considered and accounted for the complexities of opioid deprescribing at the individual and health system level, shaping recommendations and practice points to facilitate point-of-care use. Stakeholders exhibited diverse preferences, beliefs, and values. This variability, low certainty of evidence, and system-level policies and funding models impacted the strength of the generated recommendations, resulting in the formulation of four 'conditional' recommendations.

CONCLUSION

The context within which evidence-based recommendations are considered, as well as the political and health system environment, can contribute to the success of recommendation implementation. Use of an EtD framework allowed for the development of implementable recommendations relevant at the point-of-care through consideration of limitations of the evidence and relevant contextual factors.

'It was a joint plan we worked out together'. How the I-WOTCH programme enabled people with chronic non-malignant pain to taper their opioids: a process evaluation

BACKGROUND

The Improving the Wellbeing of people with Opioid Treated CHronic pain (I-WOTCH) randomised controlled trial found that a group-based educational intervention to support people using strong opioids for chronic non-malignant pain helped a significant proportion of people to stop or decrease opioid use with no increase in pain-related disability. We report a linked process evaluation of the group-based intervention evaluated in comparison to a usual-care control group that received a self-help booklet and relaxation CD.

METHODS

We interviewed 18 intervention facilitators, and 20 intervention and 20 control participants who had chronic non-malignant pain and were recruited from general (family) practices in the UK. Quantitative data included change mechanism questions on the trial questionnaires which explored motivation, expectations and self-efficacy. Fidelity was assessed by listening to a sample of audio-recorded group sessions and nurse consultations. Quantitative and qualitative data were integrated using 'follow a thread' and a mixed-methods matrix.

FINDINGS

Four overarching themes emerged: (1) the right time to taper, (2) the backdrop of a life with chronic pain, (3) needing support and (4) the benefits of being in a group. Delivery fidelity was good, adherence (83%) and competence (79%) across a range of intervention groups. Staff delivering the intervention found three typical responses to the intervention: resistance, open to trying and feeling it was not the right time. The group experience was important to those in the intervention arm. It provided people with a forum in which to learn about the current thinking about opioid usage and its effects. It also gave them examples of how feasible or personally relevant coming off opioids might be.

CONCLUSION

The process evaluation data showed that the I-WOTCH intervention was well delivered, well received and useful for most interviewees. Being 'the right time' to taper and having support throughout tapering, emerged as important factors within the context of living with chronic pain.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN49470934.

Patient-targeted interventions for opioid deprescribing: An overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Deprescribing (reduction or cessation) of prescribed opioids can be challenging for both patients and healthcare professionals.

OBJECTIVE

To synthesize and evaluate evidence from systematic reviews examining the effectiveness and outcomes of patient-targeted opioid deprescribing interventions for all types of pain.

METHODS

Systematic searches were conducted in five databases with results screened against predetermined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Primary outcomes were (i) reduction in opioid dose, reported as change in oral Morphine Equivalent Daily Dose (oMEDD) and (ii) success of opioid deprescribing, reported as the proportion of the sample for which opioid use declined. Secondary outcomes included pain severity, physical function, quality of life and adverse events. The certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology.

FINDINGS

Twelve reviews were eligible for inclusion. Interventions were heterogeneous in nature and included pharmacological (n = 4), physical (n = 3), procedural (n = 3), psychological or behavioural (n = 3) and mixed (n = 5) interventions. Multidisciplinary care programmes appeared to be the most effective intervention for opioid deprescribing; however, the certainty of evidence was low, with significant variability in opioid reduction across interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence is too uncertain to draw firm conclusions about specific populations who may derive the greatest benefit from opioid deprescribing, warranting further investigation.

Clinical practice guideline for deprescribing opioid analgesics: summary of recommendations

INTRODUCTION

Long term opioids are commonly prescribed to manage pain. Dose reduction or discontinuation (deprescribing) can be challenging, even when the potential harms of continuation outweigh the perceived benefits. The Evidence-based clinical practice guideline for deprescribing opioid analgesics was developed using robust guideline development processes and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, and contains deprescribing recommendations for adults prescribed opioids for pain.

MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS

Eleven recommendations provide advice about when, how and for whom opioid deprescribing should be considered, while noting the need to consider each person's goals, values and preferences. The recommendations aim to achieve: implementation of a deprescribing plan at the point of opioid initiation; initiation of opioid deprescribing for persons with chronic non-cancer or chronic cancer-survivor pain if there is a lack of overall and clinically meaningful improvement in function, quality of life or pain, a lack of progress towards meeting agreed therapeutic goals, or the person is experiencing serious or intolerable opioid-related adverse effects; gradual and individualised deprescribing, with regular monitoring and review; consideration of opioid deprescribing for individuals at high risk of opioid-related harms; avoidance of opioid deprescribing for persons nearing the end of life unless clinically indicated; avoidance of opioid deprescribing for persons with a severe opioid use disorder, with the initiation of evidence-based care, such as medication-assisted treatment of opioid use disorder; and use of evidence-based co-interventions to facilitate deprescribing, including interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary or multimodal care.

CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT AS A RESULT OF THESE GUIDELINES

To our knowledge, these are the first evidence-based guidelines for opioid deprescribing. The recommendations intend to facilitate safe and effective deprescribing to improve the quality of care for persons taking opioids for pain.

TANGO: Development of Consumer Information Leaflets to Support TAperiNG of Opioids in Older Adults with Low Back Pain and Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis

INTRODUCTION

Globally, the rate of opioid prescription is high for chronic musculoskeletal conditions despite guidelines recommending against their use as their adverse effects outweigh their modest benefit. Deprescribing opioids is a complex process that can be hindered by multiple prescriber- and patient-related barriers. These include fear of the process of, or outcomes from, weaning medications, or a lack of ongoing support. Thus, involving patients, their carers, and healthcare professionals (HCPs) in the development of consumer materials that can educate and provide support for patients and HCPs over the deprescribing process is critical to ensure that the resources have high readability, usability, and acceptability to the population of interest.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to (1) develop two educational consumer leaflets to support opioid tapering in older people with low back pain (LBP) and hip or knee osteoarthritis (HoKOA), and (2) evaluate the perceived usability, acceptability, and credibility of the consumer leaflets from the perspective of consumers and HCPs.

DESIGN

This was an observational survey involving a consumer review panel and an HCP review panel.

PARTICIPANTS

30 consumers (and/or their carers) and 20 HCPs were included in the study. Consumers were people older than 65 years of age who were currently experiencing LBP or HoKOA, and with no HCP background. Carers were people who provided unpaid care, support, or assistance to an individual meeting the inclusion criteria for consumers. HCPs included physiotherapists (n = 9), pharmacists (n = 7), an orthopaedic surgeon (n = 1), a rheumatologist (n = 1), nurse practitioner (n = 1) and a general practitioner (n = 1), all with at least three years of clinical experience and who reported working closely with this target patient population within the last 12 months.

METHODS

Prototypes of two educational consumer leaflets (a brochure and a personal plan) were developed by a team of LBP, OA, and geriatric pharmacotherapy researchers and clinicians. The leaflet prototypes were evaluated by two separate chronological review panels involving (1) consumers and/or their carers, and (2) HCPs. Data collection for both panels occurred via an online survey. Outcomes were the perceived usability, acceptability, and credibility of the consumer leaflets. Feedback received from the consumer panel was used to refine the leaflets, before circulating the leaflets for further review by the HCP panel. Additional feedback from the HCP review panel was then used to refine the final versions of the consumer leaflets.

RESULTS

Both consumers and HCPs perceived the leaflets and personal plan to be usable, acceptable, and credible. Consumers rated the brochure against several categories, which scored between 53 and 97% positive responses. Similarly, the overall feedback provided by HCPs was 85-100% positive. The modified System Usability Scale scores obtained from HCPs was 55-95% positive, indicating excellent usability. Feedback for the personal plan from both HCPs and consumers was largely positive, with consumers providing the highest positive ratings (80-93%). While feedback for HCPs was also high, we did identify that prescribers were hesitant to provide the plan to patients frequently (no positive responses).

CONCLUSIONS

This study led to the development of a leaflet and personal plan to support the reduction of opioid use in older people with LBP or HoKOA. The development of the consumer leaflets incorporated feedback provided by HCPs and consumers to maximise clinical effectiveness and future intervention implementation.

Opioid deprescribing in patients with chronic noncancer pain: a systematic review of international guidelines

ABSTRACT

In response to the overuse of prescription opioid analgesics, clinical practice guidelines encourage opioid deprescribing (ie, dose reduction or cessation) in patients with chronic noncancer pain. Therefore, this study evaluated and compared international clinical guideline recommendations on opioid deprescribing in patients with chronic noncancer pain. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, PEDro, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (United Kingdom), and MAGICapp databases from inception to June 4, 2021, with no language or publication restrictions. In addition, we searched the National Guideline Clearinghouse and International Guideline Network databases from inception to December 2018. Two independent reviewers conducted the initial title and abstract screening. After discrepancies were resolved through discussion, 2 independent reviewers conducted the full-text screening of each potentially eligible reference. Four independent reviewers completed the prepiloted, standardized data extraction forms of each included guideline. Extracted information included bibliographical details; strength of recommendations; and the outcomes, such as when and how to deprescribe, managing withdrawal symptoms, additional support, outcome monitoring, and deprescribing with coprescription of sedatives. A narrative synthesis was used to present the results. This study found that clinical practice guidelines agree on when and how to deprescribe opioid analgesics but lack advice on managing a patient's withdrawal symptoms, outcome monitoring, and deprescribing with coprescription of sedatives. Quality assessment of the guidelines suggests that greater discussion on implementation and dissemination is needed.