ACOEM Practice Guidelines: Opioids and Safety-Sensitive Work

Opioid analgesic dose and route conversion ratio studies: a scoping review to inform an eDelphi guideline

BACKGROUND

Clinicians regularly prescribe opioids to manage acute and chronic cancer pain, frequently to address acute postoperative pain, and occasionally to manage chronic non-cancer pain. Clinical efficacy may be suboptimal in some patients due to side effects and/or poor response, and opioid rotation/switching (conversions) is frequently necessary. Despite the widespread practice, opioid conversion ratios are inconsistent between clinicians, practices, and countries. Therefore, we performed a scoping systematic review of opioid conversion studies to inform an international eDelphi guideline.

METHODS

To ensure a comprehensive review, we conducted a systematic search across multiple databases (OVID Medline, PsycINFO, Embase, EBM-Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Registered Trials, LILACS, IMEMR, AIM, WPRIM) using studies published up to June 2022. Additionally, we performed hand and Google Scholar searches to verify the completeness of our findings. Our inclusion criteria encompassed randomized and non-randomized studies with no age limit, with only a few pediatric studies identified. We included studies on cancer, non-cancer, acute, and chronic pain. The level and grade of evidence were determined based on the Multinational Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) criteria.

RESULTS

Our search yielded 21,118 abstracts, including 140 randomized (RCT) and 68 non-randomized (NRCT) clinical trials. We compared these results with recently published conversion ratios. Modest correlations were noted between published reviews and the present scoping systematic review.

CONCLUSION

The present scoping systematic review found low-quality evidence to support an opioid conversion guideline. We will use these data, including conversion ratios and type and route of administration, to inform an eDelphi guideline.

High-dose opioids for chronic non-cancer pain: an overview of Cochrane Reviews

BACKGROUND

This overview was originally published in 2017, and is being updated in 2022.  Chronic pain is typically described as pain on most days for at least three months. Chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) is any chronic pain that is not due to a malignancy. Chronic non-cancer pain in adults is a common and complex clinical issue, for which opioids are prescribed by some physicians for pain management. There are concerns that the use of high doses of opioids for CNCP lacks evidence of effectiveness, and may increase the risk of adverse events.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the evidence from Cochrane Reviews and overviews regarding the efficacy and safety of high-dose opioids (defined as 200 mg morphine equivalent or more per day) for CNCP.

METHODS

We identified Cochrane Reviews and overviews by searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in The Cochrane Library. The date of the last search was 21 July 2022. Two overview authors independently assessed the search results. We planned to analyse data on any opioid agent used at a high dose for two weeks or more for the treatment of CNCP in adults.

MAIN RESULTS

We did not identify any reviews or overviews that met the inclusion criteria. The excluded reviews largely reflected low doses or titrated doses, where all doses were analysed as a single group; we were unable to extract any data for high-dose use only.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is a critical lack of high-quality evidence, in the form of Cochrane Reviews, about how well high-dose opioids work for the management of CNCP in adults, and regarding the presence and severity of adverse events.  No evidence-based argument can be made on the use of high-dose opioids, i.e. 200 mg morphine equivalent or more daily, in clinical practice. Considering that high-dose opioids have been, and are still being used in clinical practice to treat CNCP, knowing about the efficacy and safety of these higher doses is imperative.

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.

Incidence of Workers' Compensation Claims in Opioid-Using Truck Drivers

OBJECTIVE

This study examines the relationship between opioid use prevalence and subsequent filing of workers' compensation claims.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study design was utilized to examine data from drivers' initial commercial driver medical exam, employment data, and workers' compensation claims data.

RESULTS

Data from 57,733 over 7 years were analyzed. Drivers who reported opioid use at their initial medical exam visit filed subsequent workers' compensation claims 1.81 times sooner (P = 0.0001; 95% CI 1.34, 2.44) than drivers who did not report opioid use at their CDME when controlling for age, gender, BMI, and diastolic blood pressure.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings provide information that may aid in improving regulations to control for incidents, training programs to inform professional drivers of factors that increase accident risk and educating prescribers about increased risks of injury among opioid-using drivers.

Metabolic Syndrome in Commercial Truck Drivers: Prevalence, Associated Factors, and Comparison With the General Population

INTRODUCTION

Commercial motor vehicle drivers, such as truck drivers, experience unique health, lifestyle, and occupational challenges directly associated with their profession.

METHODS

All participants in this multistate cross-sectional study completed questionnaire measurements. Participants were categorized with metabolic syndrome (MetS) if they had at least three of the five modified criteria used in the joint scientific statement on metabolic syndrome.

RESULTS

Overall MetS prevalence was 52.4% (n = 428) of the 817 participants. Prevalence of MetS criteria were waist circumference (n = 634, 77.0%), low HDL cholesterol (n = 580, 71.0%), elevated triglycerides (n = 552, 67.6%), elevated blood pressure (n = 175, 21.2%), and elevated hemoglobin A1c (n = 97, 11.9%). Truck drivers were 2.7 times more likely to have MetS compared to the general working population.

CONCLUSION

Truck drivers in the United States have a high prevalence of MetS compared to the general working population.

A 'Dilute and Shoot' Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry Method for Multiclass Drug Analysis in Pre-Cut Dried Blood Spots

Drugs able to affect the auditory and nervous systems and consumed by workers to treatdifferent pathologies can represent a possible source of risk in the work environment. All the target compounds involved in the presented project show ototoxic and/or narcoleptic side effects and, for these reasons, occupational safety organizations have recognized them as potential causes of work injuries. A multiclass method for the analysis of 15 drugs among the most widespread worldwide (belonging to nine different classes including antihistamines, beta-blockers, antidepressants, Z-drugs and opioids), was developed and validated. This study describes a rapid, sensitive and effective method to analyse these substances in whole blood using tailored pre-cut dried blood spots. Detection was achieved with a triple quadrupole mass spectrometer after an easy and simple 'dilute and shoot' solubilisation followed by an UPLC separation. All the issues linked to the use of the dried blood spots and whole blood, such as haematocrit variability, volumetric evaluation and sample carrier choice were carefully studied and managed during method development. From the validation study results it emerged that this approach can be deemed successful thanks to its few pg µL-1 LOQs, good linear intervals, absolute recoveries of no less than 75%, an almost negligible matrix effect and accuracy and precision in line with the European and American guidelines for validation. All the obtained goals have been specifically pursued in order to encourage method diffusion as a primary prevention intervention, even in small private workplaces.

Random drug and alcohol testing for preventing injury in workers

BACKGROUND

Drug- and alcohol-related impairment in the workplace has been linked to an increased risk of injury for workers. Randomly testing populations of workers for these substances has become a practice in many jurisdictions, with the intention of reducing the risk of workplace incidents and accidents. Despite the proliferation of random drug and alcohol testing (RDAT), there is currently a lack of consensus about whether it is effective at preventing workplace injury, or improving other non-injury accident outcomes in the work place.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of workplace RDAT to prevent injuries and improve non-injury accident outcomes (unplanned events that result in damage or loss of property) in workers compared with no workplace RDAT.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search to identify eligible published and unpublished studies. The date of the last search was 1 November 2020. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases, Google Scholar, and three trials registers. We also screened the reference lists of relevant publications known to us.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Study designs that were eligible for inclusion in our review included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-randomised trials (CRTs), interrupted time-series (ITS) studies, and controlled before-after (CBA) studies. Studies needed to evaluate the effectiveness of RDAT in preventing workplace injury or improving other non-injury workplace outcomes. We also considered unpublished data from clinical trial registries. We included employees working in all safety-sensitive occupations, except for commercial drivers, who are the subject of another Cochrane Review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Independently, two review authors used a data collection form to extract relevant characteristics from the included study. They then analysed a line graph included in the study of the prevalence rate of alcohol violations per year. Independently, the review authors completed a GRADE assessment, as a means of rating the quality of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Although our searching originally identified 4198 unique hits, only one study was eligible for inclusion in this review. This was an ITS study that measured the effect of random alcohol testing (RAT) on the test positivity rate of employees of major airlines in the USA from 1995 to 2002. The study included data from 511,745 random alcohol tests, and reported no information about testing for other substances. The rate of positive results was the only outcome of interest reported by the study. The average rate of positive results found by RAT increased from 0.07% to 0.11% when the minimum percentage of workers who underwent RAT annually was reduced from 25% to 10%. Our analyses found this change to be a statistically significant increase (estimated change in level, where the level reflects the average percentage points of positive tests = 0.040, 95% confidence interval 0.005 to 0.075; P = 0.031). Our GRADE assessment, for the observed effect of lower minimum testing percentages associating with a higher rate of positive test results, found the quality of the evidence to be 'very low' across the five GRADE domains. The one included study did not address the following outcomes of interest: fatal injuries; non-fatal injuries; non-injury accidents; absenteeism; and adverse effects associated with RDAT.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In the aviation industry in the USA, the only setting for which the eligible study reported data, there was a statistically significant increase in the rate of positive RAT results following a reduction in the percentage of workers tested, which we deem to be clinically relevant. This result suggests an inverse relationship between the proportion of positive test results and the rate of testing, which is consistent with a deterrent effect for testing. No data were reported on adverse effects related to RDAT. We could not draw definitive conclusions regarding the effectiveness of RDAT for employees in safety-sensitive occupations (not including commercial driving), or with safety-sensitive job functions. We identified only one eligible study that reflected one industry in one country, was of non-randomised design, and tested only for alcohol, not for drugs or other substances. Our GRADE assessment resulted in a 'very low' rating for the quality of the evidence on the only outcome reported. The paucity of eligible research was a major limitation in our review, and additional studies evaluating the effect of RDAT on safety outcomes are needed.

Prescription opioid use and associated factors among US construction workers

BACKGROUND

Construction workers are among the segments of the US population that were hit hardest by the opioid prescription and overdose deaths in the past decades. Factors that underlie opioid use in construction workers have been compartmentalized and isolated in existing studies of opioid use and opioid overdose, but they ignore the overall context of their use. This study examines prescription opioid use and its association with a variety of occupational and nonoccupational factors in construction workers in the United States.

METHODS

Data from the 2011-2017 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (n = 7994) were analyzed. The prevalence of prescribed opioid use and the association with occupational and nonoccupational characteristics among construction workers were examined in four multiple logistic regression models.

RESULTS

The odds of prescription opioid use for workers with occupational injuries was more than triple that of their noninjured counterparts when demographics and occupational factors were controlled (odds ratio = 3.38, 95% confidence interval: 2.38-4.81). Odds of prescription opioid use were higher in older construction workers, workers who were white, non-Hispanic, working part-time, and in poorer health, while Hispanic workers and those without health insurance were much less likely to report prescription opioid use.

CONCLUSIONS

Prescription opioid use among construction workers encompasses both occupational and nonoccupational factors. As an insight into opioid use among construction workers becomes clearer, effectively responding to the opioid crisis remains a challenge.

[French trends in the misuse of Fentanyl: From 2010 to 2015]

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the French use, misuse and abuse/dependence of non-injectable forms of fentanyl (transdermal and transmucosal fentanyl formulations).

METHODS

Problematic use of transdermal and transmucosal fentanyl formulations was evaluated using an approach combining multiple sources of information: (1) spontaneous notifications recorded during 6 years (2010-2015) for transdermal fentanyl form and 3 years for transmucosal fentanyl forms and (2) data from annual epidemiological systematic surveys conducted by the French Addictovigilance Network during 6 years (2010-2015).

RESULTS

In all, 147 cases were notified for transdermal fentanyl formulation and 109 cases for transmucosal fentanyl formulations. According to the galenic formulation, analysis of these cases emphasizes different profiles: for transdermal fentanyl formulation, two consumption profiles: 1/mainly for analgesic effects (74 %): women (61 %), 47 years, with addictive and/or psychiatric history (46 %), treated for chronic non-cancer related pain (93 %), 2/seeking positive psychic effects other than analgesia (26 %): men (82 %), 32 years, with addictive and/or psychiatric history (87 %) and having obtained the fentanyl patch illegally (60 %) for non-medical use. For transmucosal fentanyl formulations, only one consumption profile was observed: women (52 %), 48 years, with addictive (24 %) and/or psychiatric history (28 %), off label indication (72 %) (indications for non-cancer pain and/or no or insufficient opioid background treatment). The misuse of transmucosal fentanyl formulations implies a high risk of adverse effects: those already known of opioid-based drugs, sometimes lethal (withdrawal syndrome, respiratory and central nervous system depression…) but also serious reactions at the application site (buccal or nasal). For the transdermal fentanyl formulation, 27 cases (18 %) of involuntary intoxication were observed, of which 25 were serious. Nineteen deaths involving both forms of fentanyl have been reported (2 for the transmucosal formulations and 17 for the transdermal formulation).

CONCLUSION

Our results report significant and worrying misuse of transmucosal fentanyl formulations with wide off-label use and also primary dependence on fentanyl, regardless of galenic formulation, in patients treated for chronic non cancer pain. Given the significant risks of fentanyl, it is necessary to continue the monitoring of misuse, in particular, thanks to the activities of the French Addictovigilance network allowing a multisource approach and who provides information concerning cases of abuse, misuse and dependence.

The Romanian Society of Internal Medicine's Choosing Wisely Campaign

Quality of care in medicine is not necessarily proportional to quantity of care and excess is often useless or even more, potentially detrimental to our patients. Adhering to the European Federation of Internal Medicine's initiative, the Romanian Society of Internal Medicine (SRMI) launched the Choosing Wisely in Internal Medicine Campaign, aiming to cut down diagnostic procedures or therapeutics overused in our country. A Working Group was formed and from 200 published recommendations from previous international campaigns, 36 were voted as most important. These were submitted for voting to the members of the SRMI and posted on a social media platform. After the two voting rounds, the top six recommendations were established. These were: 1. Stop medicines when no further benefit is achieved or the potential harms outweigh the potential benefits for the individual patient. 2. Don't use antibiotics in patients with recent C. difficile without convincing evidence of need. 3. Don't regularly prescribe bed rest and inactivity following injury and/or illness unless there is scientific evidence that harm will result from activity. Promote early mobilization. 4. Don't initiate an antibiotic without an identified indication and a predetermined length of treatment or review date. 5. Don't prescribe opioids for treatment of chronic or acute pain for sensitive jobs such as operating motor vehicles, forklifts, cranes or other heavy equipment. 6. Transfuse red cells for anemia only if the hemoglobin concentration is less than 7 g/dL or if the patient is hemodynamically unstable or has significant cardiovascular or respiratory comorbidity. Don't transfuse more units of blood than absolutely necessary.

Tapentadol: an overview of the safety profile

Long-term opioid therapy may be associated with analgesic efficacy and also predictable adverse events, including cardiovascular and pulmonary events, gastrointestinal disorders, endocrinological harms, psychological problems, impairment of driving ability, and risk of abuse. These effects of opioids are mostly due to the wide expression of the mu receptor. Tapentadol, a centrally acting analgesic, is the first agent of a new class of drugs (MOR-NRI), since it combines two mechanisms of action, namely µ-opioid receptor (MOR) agonism and noradrenaline reuptake inhibition. Noteworthy, MOR activation with tapentadol is markedly lower compared with that exerted by classical opioids, thus likely resulting in fewer opioid-related adverse effects. In this review, we discuss current safety data on tapentadol, with a focus on some specific events, risk of abuse, and driving ability, a well-accepted proxy of the ability of taking critical decisions.

The Opioid Epidemic and the Role of the Occupational Health Nurse

The opioid epidemic is a national public health crisis. It began with the misuse of commonly used prescription opioid pain relievers and has led to the increased use of heroin and illicit fentanyl. Large-scale initiatives have begun on the federal and state level and place an emphasis on improved opioid prescribing, which have important implications for the workplace. Treatment of work injury may initiate the use of prescription opioids and result in misuse and possible overdose. Prescription drug abuse affects all aspects of society so potentially any workplace could be affected. A multifaceted approach is needed to reduce opioid morbidity and mortality and the occupational health nurse should be actively involved. The intent of this article is to provide an overview of the epidemic and its impact on health, the challenges for the workplace, and recommended strategies for the occupational health nurse to impact the problem.

Characterizing the Interrelationships of Prescription Opioid and Benzodiazepine Drugs With Worker Health and Workplace Hazards

OBJECTIVE

Prescription opioid and benzodiazepine drug use, which has risen significantly, can affect worker health. Exploration of the scientific literature assessed (1) interrelationships of such drug use, occupational risk factors, and illness and injury, and (2) occupational and personal risk factor combinations that can affect their use.

METHODS

The scientific literature from 2000 to 2015 was searched to determine any interrelationships.

RESULTS

Evidence for eight conceptual models emerged based on the search yield of 133 articles. These models summarize interrelationships among prescription opioid and benzodiazepine use with occupational injury and illness. Factors associated with the use of these drugs included fatigue, impaired cognition, falls, motor vehicle crashes, and the use of multiple providers.

CONCLUSION

Prescription opioid and benzodiazepine drugs may be both a personal risk factor for work-related injury and a consequence of workplace exposures.

Patterns of Opioid Prescribing and Predictors of Chronic Opioid Use in an Industrial Cohort, 2003 to 2013

OBJECTIVE

To appreciate the impact of the opioid epidemic in workers, we described opioid prescription patterns in a US industrial cohort over a 10-year period and assessed predictors of chronic prescription.

METHODS

A multiyear (2003 to 2013) cross-sectional analysis of employer-sponsored health care claims for enrolled workers (N: 21,357 to 44,769) was performed.

RESULTS

The proportion of workers prescribed opioids nearly doubled in the 10-year period. The strongest predictor of chronic opioid prescribing was year, with an increase in prescriptions each year from 2003 to 2013 (odds ratio = 2.90, 95% confidence interval: 2.41 to 3.48). Additional predictors included older age, white race, hourly wage, low back pain, and osteoarthritis.

CONCLUSIONS

Opioid prescribing for industrial workers substantially increased from 2003 to 2013. Occupational health professionals should be aware of the potential for chronic opioid use among workers to assess job safety and appropriate treatment of work-related injuries.

High-dose opioids for chronic non-cancer pain: an overview of Cochrane Reviews

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain is typically described as pain on most days for at least three months. Chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) is any chronic pain that is not due to a malignancy. Chronic non-cancer pain in adults is a common and complex clinical issue where opioids are routinely used for pain management. There are concerns that the use of high doses of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain lacks evidence of effectiveness and may increase the risk of adverse events.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the evidence from Cochrane Reviews and Overviews regarding the efficacy and safety of high-dose opioids (here defined as 200 mg morphine equivalent or more per day) for chronic non-cancer pain.

METHODS

We identified Cochrane Reviews and Overviews through a search of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (The Cochrane Library). The date of the last search was 18 April 2017. Two review authors independently assessed the search results. We planned to analyse data on any opioid agent used at high dose for two weeks or more for the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain in adults.

MAIN RESULTS

We did not identify any reviews or overviews meeting the inclusion criteria. The excluded reviews largely reflected low doses or titrated doses where all doses were analysed as a single group; no data for high dose only could be extracted.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is a critical lack of high-quality evidence regarding how well high-dose opioids work for the management of chronic non-cancer pain in adults, and regarding the presence and severity of adverse events. No evidence-based argument can be made on the use of high-dose opioids, i.e. 200 mg morphine equivalent or more daily, in clinical practice. Trials typically used doses below our cut-off; we need to know the efficacy and harm of higher doses, which are often used in clinical practice.

Adverse events associated with medium- and long-term use of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain: an overview of Cochrane Reviews

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain is common and can be challenging to manage. Despite increased utilisation of opioids, the safety and efficacy of long-term use of these compounds for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) remains controversial. This overview of Cochrane Reviews complements the overview entitled 'High-dose opioids for chronic non-cancer pain: an overview of Cochrane Reviews'.

OBJECTIVES

To provide an overview of the occurrence and nature of adverse events associated with any opioid agent (any dose, frequency, or route of administration) used on a medium- or long-term basis for the treatment of CNCP in adults.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (the Cochrane Library) Issue 3, 2017 on 8 March 2017 to identify all Cochrane Reviews of studies of medium- or long-term opioid use (2 weeks or more) for CNCP in adults aged 18 and over. We assessed the quality of the reviews using the AMSTAR criteria (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews) as adapted for Cochrane Overviews. We assessed the quality of the evidence for the outcomes using the GRADE framework.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 16 reviews in our overview, of which 14 presented unique quantitative data. These 14 Cochrane Reviews investigated 14 different opioid agents that were administered for time periods of two weeks or longer. The longest study was 13 months in duration, with most in the 6- to 16-week range. The quality of the included reviews was high using AMSTAR criteria, with 11 reviews meeting all 10 criteria, and 5 of the reviews meeting 9 out of 10, not scoring a point for either duplicate study selection and data extraction, or searching for articles irrespective of language and publication type. The quality of the evidence for the generic adverse event outcomes according to GRADE ranged from very low to moderate, with risk of bias and imprecision being identified for the following generic adverse event outcomes: any adverse event, any serious adverse event, and withdrawals due to adverse events. A GRADE assessment of the quality of the evidence for specific adverse events led to a downgrading to very low- to moderate-quality evidence due to risk of bias, indirectness, and imprecision.We calculated the equivalent milligrams of morphine per 24 hours for each opioid studied (buprenorphine, codeine, dextropropoxyphene, dihydrocodeine, fentanyl, hydromorphone, levorphanol, methadone, morphine, oxycodone, oxymorphone, tapentadol, tilidine, and tramadol). In the 14 Cochrane Reviews providing unique quantitative data, there were 61 studies with a total of 18,679 randomised participants; 12 of these studies had a cross-over design with two to four arms and a total of 796 participants. Based on the 14 selected Cochrane Reviews, there was a significantly increased risk of experiencing any adverse event with opioids compared to placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.22 to 1.66) as well as with opioids compared to a non-opioid active pharmacological comparator, with a similar risk ratio (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.33). There was also a significantly increased risk of experiencing a serious adverse event with opioids compared to placebo (RR 2.75, 95% CI 2.06 to 3.67). Furthermore, we found significantly increased risk ratios with opioids compared to placebo for a number of specific adverse events: constipation, dizziness, drowsiness, fatigue, hot flushes, increased sweating, nausea, pruritus, and vomiting.There was no data on any of the following prespecified adverse events of interest in any of the included reviews in this overview of Cochrane Reviews: addiction, cognitive dysfunction, depressive symptoms or mood disturbances, hypogonadism or other endocrine dysfunction, respiratory depression, sexual dysfunction, and sleep apnoea or sleep-disordered breathing. We found no data for adverse events analysed by sex or ethnicity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A number of adverse events, including serious adverse events, are associated with the medium- and long-term use of opioids for CNCP. The absolute event rate for any adverse event with opioids in trials using a placebo as comparison was 78%, with an absolute event rate of 7.5% for any serious adverse event. Based on the adverse events identified, clinically relevant benefit would need to be clearly demonstrated before long-term use could be considered in people with CNCP in clinical practice. A number of adverse events that we would have expected to occur with opioid use were not reported in the included Cochrane Reviews. Going forward, we recommend more rigorous identification and reporting of all adverse events in randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews on opioid therapy. The absence of data for many adverse events represents a serious limitation of the evidence on opioids. We also recommend extending study follow-up, as a latency of onset may exist for some adverse events.

Reporting on work-related low back pain: data sources, discrepancies and the art of discovering truths

Work-related pain is unique in the pain context as it is, in theory, tied to one or more workplace activities and is therefore preventable. Back pain is a leading cause of lost workplace productivity, absence from work and reduced quality of life. Aggregate estimates of the work-related contribution to the overall burden of back pain vary, which may reflect incomplete reporting, inconsistency in data collection and coding between studies and jurisdictions, or, alternatively, genuine differences between occupational groups and countries. It is therefore important for researchers, policy analysts and program development personnel in the fields of pain medicine and occupational medicine to have a thorough understanding of the appropriate use and inherent limitations of the data sources which report on this topic.

"Decision-critical" work: a conceptual framework

“Safety-sensitive” workers, also termed “safety-critical” workers, have been subject to fitness to work assessments due to concerns that a performance error may result in worker injury, injury to coworkers or the general public, and/or disruption of equipment, production or the environment. However, there exists an additional category of “decision-critical” workers, distinct from “safety-sensitive” workers, in whom impairment may impact workplace performance, relationships, attendance, reliability and quality. Adverse consequences in these latter areas may not be immediately apparent, but a potential “orbit of harm” nevertheless exists. Workplace consequences arising from impairment in “decision-critical” workers differ from those in “safety-sensitive” personnel. Despite their importance in the occupational context, “decision-critical” workers have not previously been differentiated from other workers in the published literature, and we now outline an approach to fitness to work assessment in this group.