Opioid prescribing in general practice: use of a two-stage review tool to identify and assess high-dose prescribing

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.

Long-term, high-dose opioid prescription for chronic non-cancer pain in primary care: an observational study

BACKGROUND

Opioid prescriptions for chronic pain have risen sharply over the last 25 years; harms associated with these drugs are related to dose and length of use.

AIM

The main aim of this study was to identify patients prescribed long-term, high-dose (LTHD) opioids in the community and to assess the prevalence of such use.

DESIGN & SETTING

An observational study of opioid prescribing in two demographically dissimilar GP practices in North Wales, UK.

METHOD

Details of opioid prescriptions were collected for 22 841 patients, of whom 1488 (6.5%) were being prescribed opioids on the census date. Exhaustive examination of the data identified all patients who were prescribed oral morphine equivalent doses of ≥120 mg/day for ≥1 year.

RESULTS

All these patients were being prescribed ≥120 mg/day, as a single drug, morphine, oxycodone, fentanyl, or buprenorphine, irrespective of opioid polypharmacy. Across both practices, 1.71/1000 patients were identified as LTHD users of opioid medication for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP). Prevalence was similar in the two practices. Repetition of the process until January 2021 showed no change in the pattern.

CONCLUSION

This study offers confirmation that a significant group of patients are prescribed long-term opioid medication for chronic pain at doses that are unlikely to be effective in reducing pain, but are likely to have harmful consequences. The findings offer a simple, reliable, and practical method of data extraction to identify these patients individually from routinely collected prescribing data, which will help in monitoring and treating individuals and establishing the problem prevalence.

Analgesic Opioid Misuse and Opioid Use Disorder among Patients with Chronic Non-Cancer Pain and Prescribed Opioids in a Pain Centre in France

(1) Background: Chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) remains a public health challenge around the world. Opioids (PO) have been increasingly used in the treatment of CNCP in the last 20 years. This study aimed to assess the prevalence of opioid misuse and prescribed-opioid use disorder (p-OUD) among patients with CNCP in a pain centre in France, and to analyse risk factors for moderate or severe p-OUD. (2) Method: A cross-sectional study was conducted, including patients consulting for pain management in the pain centre of Brest University Hospital. A self-questionnaire was administered (sociodemographic data, medical data, PO misuse, and p-OUD according the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5 (DSM 5) criteria). Descriptive, univariate, and multivariate analyses were conducted, together with a principal component analysis, in order to identify factors associated with p-OUD. (3) Results: In total, 115 patients were included, the majority of whom were women, with a mean age of 52 years old [18–82]; 64.3% (n = 74) had a current prescription for opioid analgesics (weak or strong). In this group, 56.7% (n = 42) had no or only mild p-OUD and 43.3% (n = 32) had current moderate or severe p-OUD. Patients with moderate or severe p-OUD were more likely to have a current antidepressant prescription, to have had psychotherapy, to currently use strong opioids and oxycodone, and to report taking more frequent doses than prescribed and feeling dependent. (4) Conclusions: We showed that the prevalence of current moderate/severe p-OUD concerned 43.3% of the patients with a CNCP seeking treatment in a pain centre. According to these results, several measures are relevant in managing p-OUD among patients with CNCP.

Opioids, Polypharmacy, and Drug Interactions: A Technological Paradigm Shift Is Needed to Ameliorate the Ongoing Opioid Epidemic

Polypharmacy is a common phenomenon among adults using opioids, which may influence the frequency, severity, and complexity of drug–drug interactions (DDIs) experienced. Clinicians must be able to easily identify and resolve DDIs since opioid-related DDIs are common and can be life-threatening. Given that clinicians often rely on technological aids—such as clinical decision support systems (CDSS) and drug interaction software—to identify and resolve DDIs in patients with complex drug regimens, this narrative review provides an appraisal of the performance of existing technologies. Opioid-specific CDSS have several system- and content-related limitations that need to be overcome. Specifically, we found that these CDSS often analyze DDIs in a pairwise manner, do not account for relevant pharmacogenomic results, and do not integrate well with electronic health records. In the context of polypharmacy, existing systems may encourage inadvertent serious alert dismissal due to the generation of multiple incoherent alerts. Future technological systems should minimize alert fatigue, limit manual input, allow for simultaneous multidrug interaction assessments, incorporate pharmacogenomic data, conduct iterative risk simulations, and integrate seamlessly with normal workflow.

Factors associated with the prescribing of high-dose opioids in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The risks of harms from opioids increase substantially at high doses, and high-dose prescribing has increased in primary care. However, little is known about what leads to high-dose prescribing, and studies exploring this have not been synthesized. We, therefore, systematically synthesized factors associated with the prescribing of high-dose opioids in primary care.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of observational studies in high-income countries that used patient-level primary care data and explored any factor(s) in people for whom opioids were prescribed, stratified by oral morphine equivalents (OME). We defined high doses as ≥ 90 OME mg/day. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, reference lists, forward citations, and conference proceedings from database inception to 5 April 2019. Two investigators independently screened studies, extracted data, and appraised the quality of included studies using the Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. We pooled data on factors using random effects meta-analyses and reported relative risks (RR) or mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) where appropriate. We also performed a number needed to harm (NNT_H) calculation on factors when applicable.

RESULTS

We included six studies with a total of 4,248,119 participants taking opioids, of whom 3.64% (n = 154,749) were taking high doses. The majority of included studies (n = 4) were conducted in the USA, one in Australia and one in the UK. The largest study (n = 4,046,275) was from the USA. Included studies were graded as having fair to good quality evidence. The co-prescription of benzodiazepines (RR 3.27, 95% CI 1.32 to 8.13, I² = 99.9%), depression (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.51, I² = 0%), emergency department visits (RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.46 to 1.61, I² = 0%, NNT_H 15, 95% CI 12 to 20), unemployment (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.63, I² = 0%), and male gender (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.28, I² = 78.6%) were significantly associated with the prescribing of high-dose opioids in primary care.

CONCLUSIONS

High doses of opioids are associated with greater risks of harms. Associated factors such as the co-prescription of benzodiazepines and depression identify priority areas that should be considered when selecting, identifying, and managing people taking high-dose opioids in primary care. Coordinated strategies and services that promote the safe prescribing of opioids are needed.

STUDY REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, CRD42018088057.

Opioid prescribing trends and geographical variation in England, 1998-2018: a retrospective database study

BACKGROUND

There is a call for greater monitoring of opioid prescribing in the UK, particularly of strong opioids in chronic pain, for which there is little evidence of clinical benefit. We aimed to comprehensively assess trends and variation in opioid prescribing in primary care in England, from 1998 to 2018, and to assess factors associated with high-dose opioid prescribing behaviour in general practices.

METHODS

We did a retrospective database study using open data sources on prescribing for all general practices in England. For all standard opioids we calculated the number of items prescribed, costs, and oral morphine equivalency to account for variation in strength. We assessed long-term prescribing trends from 1998 to 2017, patterns of geographical variation for 2018, and investigated practice factors associated with higher opioid prescribing. We also analysed prescriptions for long-acting opioids at high doses.

FINDINGS

Between 1998 and 2016, opioid prescriptions increased by 34% in England (from 568 per 1000 patients to 761 per 1000). After correcting for total oral morphine equivalency, the increase was 127% (from 190 000 mg to 431 000 mg per 1000 population). There was a decline in prescriptions from 2016 to 2017. If every practice prescribed high-dose opioids at the lowest decile rate, 543 000 fewer high-dose prescriptions could have been issued over a period of 6 months. Larger practice list size, ruralness, and deprivation were associated with greater high-dose prescribing rates. The clinical commissioning group to which a practice belongs accounted for 11·7% of the variation in high-dose prescribing. We have developed a publicly available interactive online tool, OpenPrescribing.net, which displays all primary care opioid prescribing data in England down to the individual practice level.

INTERPRETATION

Failing to account for opioid strength would substantially underestimate the true increase in opioid prescribing in the National Health Service (NHS) in England. Our findings support calls for greater action to promote best practice in chronic pain prescribing and to reduce geographical variation. This study provides a model for routine monitoring of opioid prescribing to aid targeting of interventions to reduce high-dose prescribing.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) School of Primary Care Research, NIHR Biomedical Research Centre Oxford, NHS England.