Long-term opioid therapy for chronic noncancer pain: second update of the German guidelines

Recommendations for managing adults with chronic non-cancer pain in primary care: A systematic clinical guideline review

RATIONALE

Chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) is a leading driver of disability. Primary care clinicians treat most patients with CNCP. Yet, they are often unable to identify appropriate pain treatments, mainly due to concerns about the safety and effectiveness of available medications. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) can be useful tools to guide primary care clinicians in selecting pain treatments based on the best available evidence.

OBJECTIVES

To undertake a systematic review of CPGs that address the management of adults with CNCP, regardless of underlying condition type, in primary care.

METHOD

We systematically reviewed and synthesised current CPGs for managing adults with CNCP in primary care (2013-2023). We followed a stepwise systematic process to synthesise key CPG recommendations: extracted and analysed each recommendation, synthesised by compiling similar recommendations using a thematic analysis approach, and assessed the strength of CPG recommendations to create a final, unified set of recommendations. We focused on identifying CPGs containing recommendations on the following topics: (a) opioid pain management, (b) non-opioid pharmacological pain management, (c) non-pharmacological pain management, and (d) patient-centred communication around pain management, prevention, and organisation of care.

RESULTS

We included 13 CPGs, 8 of which focused solely on use of opioids, emphasising the lack of long-term effectiveness and safety concerns, being mainly based on the expert consensus. As an exception, high-quality evidence recommended referring patients with suspected opioid use disorder to specialist addiction services for medication-assisted treatment. Recommendations for non-opioid pain management were often contradictory and based on the expert consensus. Patient-centred pain management combined with exercise-based interventions and psychological therapies are appropriate strategies for managing patients with CNCP.

CONCLUSION

Most CPGs focused on opioid management, with contradictory recommendations for non-opioid management based on low-quality evidence. Additional research is needed to strengthen the evidence for using non-opioid and non-pharmacological interventions to manage patients with CNCP.

No add-on therapeutic benefit of at-home anodal tDCS of the primary motor cortex to mindfulness meditation in patients with fibromyalgia

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated the efficacy of combining at-home anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) of the left primary motor cortex (M1) with mindfulness meditation (MM) in fibromyalgia patients trained in mindfulness.

METHODS

Thirty-seven patients were allocated to receive ten daily sessions of MM paired with either anodal or sham tDCS over the primary motor cortex. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and quality of life. Secondary outcomes were psychological impairment, sleep quality, mood, affective pain, mindfulness level, and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) measures of cortical excitability. Outcomes were analyzed pre- and post-treatment, with a one-month follow-up.

RESULTS

We found post-tDCS improvement in all clinical outcomes, including mindfulness level, except for positive affect and stress, in both groups without significant difference between active and sham conditions. No significant group*time interaction was found for all clinical and TMS outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings demonstrate no synergistic or add-on efffect of anodal tDCS of the left M1 compared to the proper effect of MM in patients with fibromyalgia.

SIGNIFICANCE

Our findings challenge the potential of combining anodal tDCS of the left M1 and MM in fibromyalgia.

Where does spinal cord stimulation fit into the international guidelines for refractory painful diabetic neuropathy? a consensus statement

BACKGROUND

Although pharmacotherapy with anticonvulsants and/or antidepressants can be effective for many people with painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN), albeit with frequent side-effects, a critical juncture occurs when neuropathic pain no longer responds to standard first- and second-step mono- and dual therapy and becomes refractory. Subsequent to these pharmacotherapeutic approaches, third-line treatment options for PDN may include opioids (short-term), capsaicin 8% patches, and spinal cord stimulation (SCS).

AIM

This document summarizes consensus recommendations regarding appropriate treatment for refractory peripheral diabetic neuropathy (PDN), based on outcomes from an expert panel convened on December 10, 2022, as part of the Worldwide Initiative for Diabetes Education Virtual Global Summit, "Advances in the Management of Painful Diabetic Neuropathy."

PARTICIPANTS

Nine attendees, eminent physicians and academics, comprising six diabetes specialists, two pain specialists, and one health services expert.

EVIDENCE

For individuals with refractory PDN, opioids are a high-risk option that do not provide a long-term solution and should not be used. For appropriately selected individuals, SCS is an effective, safe, and durable treatment option. In particular, high-frequency (HF) SCS (10 kHz) shows strong efficacy and improves quality of life. To ensure treatment success, strict screening criteria should be used to prioritize candidates for SCS.

CONSENSUS PROCESS

Each participant voiced their opinion after reviewing available data, and a verbal consensus was reached during the meeting.

CONCLUSION

Globally, the use of opioids should rarely be recommended for refractory, severe PDN. Based on increasing clinical evidence, SCS, especially HF-SCS, should be considered as a treatment for PDN that is not responsive to first- or second-line monotherapy/dual therapy.

Quality indicators for osteoarthritis pain management in the primary care setting

BACKGROUND

Development of valid and feasible quality indicators (QIs) is needed to track quality initiatives for osteoarthritis pain management in primary care settings.

METHODS

Literature search identified published guidelines that were reviewed for QI extraction. A panel of 14 experts was assembled, including primary care physicians, rheumatologists, orthopedic surgeons, pain specialists, and outcomes research pharmacists. A screening survey excluded QIs that cannot be reliably extracted from the electronic health record or that are irrelevant for osteoarthritis in primary care settings. A validity screening survey used a 9-point Likert scale to rate the validity of each QI based on predefined criteria. During expert panel discussions, stakeholders revised QI wording, added new QIs, and voted to include or exclude each QI. A priority survey used a 9-point Likert scale to prioritize the included QIs.

RESULTS

Literature search identified 520 references published from January 2015 to March 2021 and 4 additional guidelines from professional/governmental websites. The study included 41 guidelines. Extraction of 741 recommendations yielded 115 candidate QIs. Feasibility screening excluded 28 QIs. Validity screening and expert panel discussion excluded 73 QIs and added 1 QI. The final set of 15 prioritized QIs focused on pain management safety, education, weight-management, psychological wellbeing, optimizing first-line medications, referral, and imaging.

CONCLUSION

This multi-disciplinary expert panel established consensus on QIs for osteoarthritis pain management in primary care settings by combining scientific evidence with expert opinion. The resulting list of 15 prioritized, valid, and feasible QIs can be used to track quality initiatives for osteoarthritis pain management.

Actual situation and prescribing patterns of opioids by pain physicians in South Korea

Background

Use of opioids for chronic intractable pain is increasing globally, and their proper use can improve patients’ quality of life. In contrast, opioid use disorders, such as abuse or addiction, caused by prescribing opioids, are a worldwide issue. This study aimed to understand current opioid prescribing patterns and pain physicians’ experiences with opioid use in South Korea.

Methods

Pain physicians in 42 university hospitals in South Korea were asked to complete anonymous questionnaires regarding opioid prescriptions.

Results

A total of 69 surveys were completed. Most pain physicians started prescribing opioids at a pain score of 7/10 and aimed to reduce pain by 50%. Most physicians (73.1%) actively explained the prescribed medications and possible side effects, and 61.2% of physicians preferred the prescription interval of 4 weeks. Immediate-release opioids were the most popular treatment for breakthrough pain (92.6%). The most common side effect encountered by physicians was constipation (43.3%), followed by nausea/vomiting (34.3%). Of the physicians, 56.5% replied that addiction and misuse prevalences were less than 5%. However, the most concerning side effect was addiction (33.0%).

Conclusions

The survey results showed that the prescribing patterns of pain physicians generally followed Korean guidelines. Physicians were most interested in the safety and effectiveness of opioid prescriptions. They were most concerned about respiratory depression and abuse or addiction. A significant number of physicians agreed that the NHIS regulations needed improvement for patient convenience and safe and effective treatment, though there were pros and cons of the NHIS restrictions on prescription conditions.

Prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of opioid use disorder under the supervision of opioid stewardship programs: it's time to act now

The third opium war may have already started, not only due to illicit opioid trafficking from the Golden Crescent and Golden Triangle on the international front but also through indiscriminate opioid prescription and opioid diversion at home. Opioid use disorder (OUD), among unintentional injuries, has become one of the top 4 causes of death in the United States (U.S.). An OUD is defined as a problematic pattern of opioid use resulting in clinically significant impairment or distress, consisting of 2 or more of 11 problems within 1 year, as described by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition. Observation of aberrant behaviors of OUD is also helpful for overworked clinicians. For the prevention of OUD, the Opioid Risk Tool and the Current Opioid Misuse Measure are appropriate screening tests before and during opioid administration, respectively. Treatment of OUD consists of 3 opioid-based U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved medications, including methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone, and non-opioid-based symptomatic medications for reducing opioid withdrawal syndromes, such as α2 agonists, β-blockers, antidiarrheals, antiemetics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and benzodiazepines. There are at least 6 recommendable guidelines and essential terms related to OUD. Opioid stewardship programs are now critical to promoting appropriate use of opioid medications, improving patient outcomes, and reducing misuse of opioids, influenced by the successful implementation of antimicrobial stewardship programs. Despite the lack of previous motivation, now is the critical time for trying to reduce the risk of OUD.

Trends in Opioid Utilisation in Hungary, 2006-2020: A Nationwide Retrospective Study with Multiple Metrics

BACKGROUND

Opioid use is well-documented in several countries: some countries struggle with overuse while others have almost no access to opioids. For Europe, limited data are available. This study analysed Hungarian opioid utilisation in ambulatory care between 2006 and 2020.

METHODS

We obtained national drug utilization data on reimbursed opioid analgesics (ATC code: N02A) from a national health insurance database for a 15-year period. We investigated utilisation trends, using three volume-based metrics (defined daily dose per 1000 inhabitants per day (DID), oral morphine equivalent per 1000 inhabitants per day, packages dispensed per 1000 inhabitants per year). We stratified data based on administration routes, analgesic potency and reimbursement categories.

RESULTS

Total opioid utilisation increased during the study period according to all three metrics (74% in DID) and reached 5.31 DID by 2020. Upward trends were driven by an increase both in weak and strong opioid use (79% vs. 53%). The most commonly used opioids were fentanyl (in the strong category; 0.76 DID in 2020) and tramadol (in the weak category; 2.62 DID in 2020). Overall, tramadol was also the most commonly used opioid throughout the study period. Oral administration of opioid medications was dominant. Based on reimbursement categories, musculoskeletal pain was becoming a more frequent indication for opioid use (1552% increase in DID), while opioid use for cancer pain declined significantly during the study period (-33% in DID).

CONCLUSIONS

Our low utilisation numbers might indicate underuse of opioid analgesia, especially for cancer pain.

[Adverse effects of opioids, antidepressants and anticonvulsants on sex hormones : Often unnoticed but clinically relevant]

Androgen insufficiency under treatment with opioids, antidepressants and anticonvulsants in chronic pain diseases is a side effect with a high prevalence. It can lead to clinical metabolic alterations, adynamia, stress intolerance, anemia or osteoporosis and has a significant impact on the quality of life. Opioids, antidepressants and anticonvulsants affect the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis of sex hormones. A urologist, andrologist or endocrinologist should be involved in the treatment at an early stage. The recommendation of a differential therapeutic selection of certain substances is only indicative and does not meet evidential criteria. The indications for androgen substitution must be individualized and in consideration of the risk-benefit profile. Awareness of this side effect of an otherwise lege artis medicinal pain therapy must be sharpened and compulsory included in the differential diagnostic considerations.

The costs incurred by the NHS in England due to the unnecessary prescribing of dependency-forming medications

This cross-sectional study estimates the costs incurred by the National Health Service (NHS) in England as a consequence of the unnecessary prescribing (i.e. non-indicated or dispensable) of dependency-forming medicines (antidepressants, opioids, gabapentinoids, benzodiazepines, Z-drugs). It assesses prescribing in primary care from April 2015-March 2018. Analyses were based upon the following data sets: the number of adults continuously prescribed dependency forming medications and the duration of prescriptions (obtained from Public Health England); the Net Ingredient Cost (NIC) and the dispensing costs for each medicine (obtained from the NHS Business Service Authority [NHSBSA]). Consultation costs were calculated based on guideline recommendations and the number of consultations evidenced in prior research for long-term medication monitoring. Across opioids, gabapentinoids, benzodiazepines, Z-drugs the total estimated unnecessary cost over three years (April 2015-March 2018) was £1,367,661,104 to £1,555,234,627. For antidepressants the total estimated unnecessary cost for one year was £37,321,783 to £45,765,504. The data indicate that the NHS in England may incur a significant estimated mean annual loss of £455,887,035 to £518,411,542 for opioids, gabapentinoids, benzodiazepines, Z-drugs and an estimated annual loss of £37,321,783 to £45,765,504 for antidepressants. Combined, this gives an estimated annual loss of £493,208,818 to £564,177,046 as a result of non-indicated or dispensable prescribing of dependency-forming medicines. Estimates are conservative and figures could be higher.

Risk Prescriptions of Strong Opioids in the Treatment of Chronic Non-Cancer Pain by Primary Care Physicians in Catalonia: Opicat Padris Project

The prescription of strong opioids (SO) for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) is steadily increasing. This entails a high risk of adverse effects, a risk that increases with the concomitant prescription of SO with central nervous system depressant drugs and with the use of SO for non-recommended indications. In order to examine this concomitant risk prescription, we designed a descriptive, longitudinal, retrospective population-based study. Patients aged ≥15 years with a continued SO prescription for ≥3 months during 2013-2017 for CNCP were included. Of these, patients who had received concomitant prescriptions of SO and risk drugs (gabapentinoids, benzodiazepines and antidepressants) and those who had received immediate-release fentanyl (IRF) were selected. The study included 22,691 patients; 20,354 (89.7%) patients received concomitant risk prescriptions. Men and subjects with a higher socioeconomic status received fewer concomitant risk prescriptions. Benzodiazepines or Z-drugs were prescribed concomitantly with SO in 15,883 (70%) patients, antidepressants in 14,932 (65%) and gabapentinoids in 11,267 (49%), while 483 (21.32%) patients received IRF (2266 prescriptions in total) without a baseline SO. In conclusion, our study shows that a high percentage of patients prescribed SO for CNCP received concomitant prescriptions with known risks, as well as IRF for unauthorized indications.

Opioid Consumption in Chronic Pain Patients: Role of Perceived Injustice and Other Psychological and Socioeconomic Factors

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain is a complex biopsychosocial phenomenon. Lifestyle, behavioral, socioeconomic, and psychosocial factors such as depression and perceived injustice are often associated with the development of chronic pain and vice versa. We sought to examine the interaction of these factors with opioid intake.

METHODS

At our institution, 164 patients with chronic pain undergoing an interdisciplinary assessment within a three-month period participated in the study and completed the Injustice Experience Questionnaire (IEQ). Data regarding opioid intake, pain levels, pain diagnosis, depression, anxiety, stress, quality of life, pain-related disability, habitual well-being, occupational status, and ongoing workers compensation litigation were extracted from the patients' charts.

RESULTS

Approximately one-fourth of the patients used opioids. The IEQ total was significantly higher in patients using Schedule III opioids. Depression, but not the anxiety and stress scores, were significantly higher in patients using opioids. There were no significant differences regarding pain-related disability, habitual well-being, and the coded psychosocial diagnoses. In the patient group without opioids, the percentage of employed persons was significantly higher but there were no significant differences regarding work leave, pension application, or professional education.

CONCLUSIONS

Opioid use appears to be more closely related to psychological factors and single social determinants of pain than to somatic factors.

Trends in the Prescription of Strong Opioids for Chronic Non-Cancer Pain in Primary Care in Catalonia: Opicat-Padris-Project

In chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP), evidence of the effectiveness of strong opioids (SO) is very limited. Despite this, their use is increasingly common. To examine SO prescriptions, we designed a descriptive, longitudinal, retrospective population-based study, including patients aged ≥15 years prescribed SO for ≥3 months continuously in 2013–2017 for CNCP in primary care in Catalonia. Of the 22,691 patients included, 17,509 (77.2%) were women, 10,585 (46.6%) were aged >80 years, and most had incomes of <€18,000 per year. The most common diagnoses were musculoskeletal diseases and psychiatric disorders. There was a predominance of transdermal fentanyl in the defined daily dose (DDD) per thousand inhabitants/day, with the greatest increase for tapentadol (312% increase). There was an increase of 66.89% in total DDD per thousand inhabitants/day for SO between 2013 (0.737) and 2017 (1.230). The mean daily oral morphine equivalent dose/day dispensed for all drugs was 83.09 mg. Transdermal fentanyl and immediate transmucosal release were the largest cost components. In conclusion, there was a sustained increase in the prescription of SO for CNCP, at high doses, and in mainly elderly patients, predominantly low-income women. The new SO are displacing other drugs.

Application and Clinical Value of Definitive Drug Monitoring in Pain Management and Addiction Medicine

OBJECTIVE

To assess routine application and clinical value of definitive urine drug monitoring (UDM) for drug detection, inconsistent drug use and prescription adherence, along with a comparison to immunoassay screening (IAS).

METHODS

Direct-to-definitive UDM performance was analyzed retrospectively in 5,000 patient specimens. Drug findings, medication inconsistencies and detection sensitivity were assessed, and definitive UDM versus IAS monitoring was studied.

RESULTS

Definitive testing resulted in 18,793 drug findings with 28,403 positive drug and metabolite tests. Definitive testing expanded monitoring with 11,396 drug findings that would not be tested by IAS. The opioids accounted for the highest frequency of inconsistent positive drug-use findings, at 12%. Conversely, inconsistent negative drug findings, used as an index of prescription non-adherence, were determined in 1,751 of 15,409 monitored medications and included a high frequency of antidepressants and antipsychotics inconsistencies. Direct comparison of definitive UDM and IAS showed false-positives by IAS as well as a high rate of false-negatives that would be missed using current confirmation protocols.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from routine application of direct-to-definitive UDM demonstrate the clinical value of drug-use identification and objective evaluation of inconsistencies in drug misuse and medication adherence in pain management and addiction medicine practice. Without conversion to direct-to-definitive UDM, continuing use of IAS will limit the scope of drugs being tested, will result in an indeterminate rate of false negatives and will require confirmation testing to eliminate the reporting of false positive IAS tests. The findings in this study provide evidence-based support for recommended use of a direct-to-definitive drug testing protocol.

Is Europe also facing an opioid crisis?-A survey of European Pain Federation chapters

BACKGROUND

There is considerable public interest in whether Europe is facing an opioid crisis comparable to the one in the United States and the contribution of opioid prescriptions for pain to a potential opioid crisis.

METHODS

A task force of the European Pain Federation (EFIC) conducted a survey with its national chapter representatives on trends of opioid prescriptions and of drug-related emergency departments and substance use disorder treatment admissions and of deaths as proxies of opioid-related harms over the last 20 years.

RESULTS

Data from 25 European countries were received. In most European countries opioid prescriptions increased from 2004 to 2016. The levels of opioid consumption and their increase differed between countries. Some Eastern European countries still have a low opioid consumption. Opioids are mainly prescribed for acute pain and chronic noncancer pain in some Western and Northern European countries. There was a parallel increase in opioid prescriptions and some proxies of opioid-related harms in France, Finland and the Netherlands, but not in Germany, Spain and Norway. In United Kingdom, opioid overdose deaths, but not opioid prescriptions increased between 2016 and 2018. There are no robust data available on whether prescribed opioids for pain patients contributed to opioid-related harms.

CONCLUSIONS

There are marked differences between European countries in trends of opioid prescribing and of proxies for opioid-related harms. Europe as a whole is not facing an opioid crisis. Discussions on the potential harms of opioids should not obstruct their prescription for cancer pain and palliative care.

SIGNIFICANCE

Europe as a whole is not facing an opioid crisis. Some Eastern European countries have limited access to opioid medicines. Discussions on the potential harms of opioid medicines for noncancer pain should not obstruct opioid therapy for cancer therapy and palliative care.