Chronic Pain and Opioid Prescribing: Three Ways for Navigating Complexity at the Clinical‒Population Health Interface

Trajectories of opioid consumption as predictors of patient-reported outcomes among individuals attending multidisciplinary pain treatment clinics

PURPOSE

This study aimed to identify opioid consumption trajectories among persons living with chronic pain (CP) and put them in relation to patient-reported outcomes 6 months after initiating multidisciplinary pain treatment.

METHODS

This study used data from the Quebec Pain Registry (2008-2014) linked to longitudinal Quebec health insurance databases. We included adults diagnosed with CP and covered by the Quebec public prescription drug insurance plan. The daily cumulative opioid doses in the first 6 months after initiating multidisciplinary pain treatment were transformed into morphine milligram equivalents. An individual-centered approach involving principal factor and cluster analyses applied to longitudinal statistical indicators of opioid use was conducted to classify trajectories. Multivariate regression models were applied to evaluate the associations between trajectory group membership and outcomes at 6-month follow-up (pain intensity, pain interference, depression, and physical and mental health-related quality of life).

RESULTS

We identified three trajectories of opioid consumption: "no or very low and stable" opioid consumption (n = 2067, 96.3%), "increasing" opioid consumption (n = 40, 1.9%), and "decreasing" opioid consumption (n = 39, 1.8%). Patients in the "no or very low and stable" trajectory were less likely to be current smokers, experience polypharmacy, use opioids or benzodiazepine preceding their first visit, or experience pain interference at treatment initiation. Patients in the "increasing" opioid consumption group had significantly greater depression scores at 6-month compared to patients in the "no or very low and stable" trajectory group.

CONCLUSION

Opioid consumption trajectories do not seem to be important determinants of most PROs 6 months after initiating multidisciplinary pain treatment.

COVID-19 symptom load as a risk factor for chronic pain: A national cross-sectional study

INTRODUCTION

Emerging evidence suggests that a COVID-19 infection with a high initial severity may be associated with development of long-COVID conditions such as chronic pain. At the population level, it is unknown if severity of a COVID-19 infection might be a new risk factor for chronic pain above and beyond the traditional slate of pre-established risk factors. The purpose of this study is to examine whether COVID-19 severity of infection may be a new risk factor for chronic pain.

METHODS

Using data from the 2021 National Health Interview Survey (n = 15,335), this study examined the adjusted odds of experiencing high frequency levels of pain in the past 3 months for those who reported no/mild symptoms from a COVID-19 infection, and those reporting moderate/severe symptoms from COVID-19, compared to those never infected. A 1:1:1 propensity score matched analysis was also performed to examine the odds of pain.

RESULTS

Prevalence of pain was higher in the moderate/severe symptom group compared to the no infection group (25.48% vs 19.44%, p <0.001). Both the adjusted model (odds ratio [OR] = 1.28, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.09, 1.51) and matched model (OR = 1.45, CI = 1.14, 1.83) revealed higher odds of pain for those with moderate/high COVID-19 symptoms compared to no infection.

CONCLUSIONS

A moderate/highly symptomatic COVID-19 infection may be a new risk factor for chronic pain. As the absolute number of severe COVID-19 infections continues to rise, overall prevalence of chronic pain may also increase. While knowledge continues to unfold on long-haul symptoms, prevention of severe infections remains essential.

Principles-Focused Evaluation: A Promising Practice in the Evaluation of Continuing Professional Development

ABSTRACT

Outcome-based evaluations still dominate in continuing professional development (CPD) despite the availability of evaluation approaches that address program processes and contexts. Our continued reliance on outcomes-based evaluation fails to respect the importance of complexity and the human element of program planning and implementation. Therefore, it is time that the field of CPD embrace complementary approaches to program evaluation that consider the complexity and maturity of programs and their contexts, while providing credible and relevant information to inform strategic decisions regarding the future of a program. Principles-focused evaluation provides a complement to traditional evaluation approaches through the articulation of a program's values that can be actioned. These "actionable values," known as principles, become the focus of the evaluation for the purposes of program decision-making. This paper describes how one CPD program, designed as a response to growing opioid-related harms, adopted a principles-focused evaluation to inform ongoing iteration of the program. The process used to design the principles, how the principles are informing the transportability of the program, and implications for CPD evaluation are discussed.

Education as drug policy: A realist synthesis of continuing professional development for opioid agonist therapy

BACKGROUND

Continuing professional development (CPD) for opioid agonist therapy (OAT) has been identified as a key health policy strategy to improve care for people living with opioid use disorder (OUD) and to address rising opioid-related harms. To design and deliver effective CPD programs, there is a need to clarify how they work within complex health system and policy contexts. This review synthesizes the literature on OAT CPD programs and educational theory to clarify which interventions work, for whom, and in what contexts.

METHODS

A systematic review and realist synthesis of evaluations of CPD programs focused on OAT was conducted. This included record identification and screening, theory familiarization, data collection, analysis, expert consultation, and iterative context-intervention-mechanism-outcome (CIMO) configuration development.

RESULTS

Twenty-four reports comprising 21 evaluation studies from 5 countries for 3373 providers were reviewed. Through iterative testing of included studies with relevant theory, five CIMO configurations were developed. The programs were categorized by who drove the learning outcomes (i.e., system/policy, instructor, learner) and their spheres of influence (i.e., micro, meso, macro). There was a predominance of instructor-driven programs driving change at the micro level, with few policy-driven macro-influential programs, inconsistent with the promotion of CPD as a clear opioid crisis policy-level intervention.

CONCLUSION

OAT CPD is challenged by mismatches in program justifications, objectives, activities, and outcomes. Depending on how these program factors interact, OAT CPD can operate as a barrier or facilitator to OUD care. With more deliberate planning and consideration of program theory, programs more directly addressing diverse learner and system needs may be developed and delivered. OAT CPD as drug policy does not operate in isolation; programs may feed into each other and intercalate with other policy initiatives to have micro, meso, and macro impacts on educational and population health outcomes.

Shifting interpretations in evidence and guidance in pain and opioids research: A bibliometric analysis of a highly cited case series from 1986

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Portenoy and Foley's 1986 landmark case series 'Chronic use of opioid analgesics in non-malignant pain: report of 38 cases' has been reproached for opening the floodgates of opioid prescribing for chronic non-cancer pain and the attendant harms. This influential article has been cited over 500 times in the scientific literature over the last four decades. This study seeks to understand the impact of Portenoy and Foley's article on subsequent discussions and research about opioids.

METHODS

We conducted a multi-method bibliometric analysis of all citations of this article from 1986 through 2019 using quantitative relational and qualitative content analysis to determine how uses and interpretations of this case series and associated prescribing guidance have changed over time, in relationship to the evolution of the North American opioid crises.

RESULTS

Using time series analysis, we identified three periods with distinct interpretations and uses of the index article. In the first 'exploration' period (1986-1996), the index article was well-received by the scientific community and motivated further study of the effects of opioids. In the second 'implementation' period (1997-2003, coinciding with the release of OxyContin®), this case series was used as evidence to support widespread prescribing of opioid analgesics, even while it was recognized that long-term effects had not yet been evaluated. The third 'reassessment' period (2004-2019) focused on how opioid-related harms had been overlooked, and in many cases, these harms were directly attributed to this article.

CONCLUSION

These changes in interpretation demonstrate shifting currents of the use and mobilization of evidence regarding pain and opioids, and how these currents both impact and are impacted by clinical practices and major sociohistorical phenomena such as the opioid crisis. Researchers and clinicians must account for these shifting dynamics when developing and interpreting scientific knowledge, including in the form of clinical practice guidelines.