Patterns of Opioid and Non-Opioid Analgesic Consumption in Patients with Post-COVID-19 Conditions

Pain is a major health issue for healthcare systems, and access to pain treatment is a fundamental human right. Pain is a common symptom experienced in the post-COVID phase by a significant percentage of patients. This study describes the prevalence and associated factors associated with the use of opioid and non-opioid analgesics in subjects with post-COVID-19 condition. Sociodemographic data, post-COVID symptoms, health profile, and opioid and non-opioid analgesic consumption were collected in 390 subjects with post-COVID-19 condition. We analyzed the independent effect of all variables on opioid/non-opioid analgesic consumption by using logistic multivariate regressions. The prevalence of opioid and non-opioid analgesic consumption was 24.1% and 82.3%, respectively. Tramadol (17.18%) and codeine (7.95%) were the most commonly used opioid analgesics, and Paracetamol (70%) and ibuprofen (45.4%) were the most commonly used non-opioid analgesics. Females were more likely to consume non-opioid analgesics (aOR2.20, 95%CI 1.15, 4.22) than males. Marital status of married/partner vs. single (aOR2.96; 95% CI 1.43, 6.12), monthly income < EUR 1000 VS. > EUR 2000 (aOR3.81; 95% CI 1.37, 10.61), number of post-COVID symptoms < 5 (aOR2.64, 95%CI 1.18, 5.87), and anxiolytics consumption (aOR 1.85, 95%CI 1.05, 3.25) were associated with a greater likelihood of opioid analgesic consumption. Age > 55 years (aOR3.30, 95%CI 1.34, 8.09) and anxiolytics consumption (aOR2.61, 95%CI 1.36, 4.98) were associated with a greater likelihood of non-opioid analgesic consumption. Opioid analgesic consumption was highly associated (aOR 3.41, 95%CI 1.27, 6.11) with non-opioid analgesic consumption. The prevalence of opioid analgesic and non-opioid analgesic consumption in individuals with post-COVID-19 condition was 24.1% and 82.3%. Females with post-COVID-19 condition showed higher non-opioid analgesic consumption than men. Predictors of opioid consumption were marital status, lower monthly income, number of post-COVID symptoms, and anxiolytic consumption. Older age and anxiolytic consumption were predictors of non-opioid consumption.

Non-opioid versus Opioid Peri-operative Analgesia In Neurosurgery (NOPAIN): Study protocol for a multi-centric randomised controlled trial

Background and Aims

Many patients suffer from post-operative pain after neurosurgery despite using intra-operative opioids. Opioid side effects are problematic in neurosurgical patients. Hence, non-opioid alternatives for the management of nociception and pain are needed. Previous studies comparing opioids with non-opioids in the neurosurgical population were few, from single centres, of small sample sizes and were equivocal in findings, which prevented change in clinical practice. To overcome these limitations, we are conducting a multi-centre trial with objectives to compare intra-operative rescue opioid requirements and post-operative pain scores (primary objectives), adverse events, quality of recovery from anaesthesia, quality of sleep and patient satisfaction during hospital stay, and persistent post-surgical pain and quality of life at 3 and 6 months (secondary objectives) in patients receiving opioid and non-opioid analgesia for brain tumour surgeries.

Methods

This study protocol describes the methodology of a multi-centre randomised controlled trial. Ethics committee approval has been obtained from all five centres, the trial has been registered with the Clinical Trial Registry- India, and insurance has been obtained for this investigator-initiated funded study. In patients undergoing supra-tentorial brain tumour surgery (population), we will compare fentanyl (intervention) 1 µg/kg/h with dexmedetomidine (comparator) 0.5 µg/kg/h administered during surgery with regards to intra-operative rescue opioid requirement and post-operative pain (primary outcomes).

Results

We describe the study protocol of the multi-centre trial (protocol version 2, dated 29/01/2022). The first patient was recruited on 19/10/2022, and we will complete recruitment before March 2024.

Conclusion

We expect our study to establish dexmedetomidine as an effective non-opioid analgesic vis-à-vis opioids in the neurosurgical population.

CANCER PAIN AND THERAPY

Cancer pain is not a homogenous and clearly understood pathological process. The best treatment is a combination of drug and non-drug measures. Pain is divided into visceral, bone or neuropathic pain and has characteristics of continuous or intermittent pain. Cancer bone pain therapy remains centered on strong opioid, radiotherapy and bisphosphonates. Invasive procedures are aimed to improve neurological function, ambulation and pain relief. Solid tumors often demand surgery. Treatment of acute postoperative pain is crucial for the prevention of chronic pain. Chemotherapy and radiation sometimes also cause pain. The management of cancer pain has improved because of rapid diagnosis and treatment, understanding of analgesics and the cooperation of patients and their family. The presence of special pain centers in hospitals also raise standard of cancer pain management. Drug therapy with non-opioid, opioid and adjuvant drugs is the base of such management. The side effects must be monitored and timely treated. Methods of regional nerve blockade in pain control are numerous. Placement of epidural, intrathecal and subcutaneous catheters, conductive nerve blocks with continuous delivery of mixed local anesthetics are very successful for selected patients. Conventional physical therapy involving lymphatic drainage is useful. Acupuncture, psychotherapy and similar methods are also applicable.

PRO AND CONTRA ON ADJUVANTS TO NEUROAXIAL ANESTHESIA AND PERIPHERAL NERVE BLOCKS

Modern approach in surgical treatment and in managing acute and chronic pain is nowadays more and more based on the implementation of all possible techniques of regional anesthesia (RA). Local anesthetics (LA) are needed to achieve standard regional anesthesia. Local anesthetics are primarily characterized by time constraints and duration of action, and depending on the amount applied, adverse effects on the cardiac and central nervous system may occur. Adjuvants are drugs used together with LA due to their synergistic effect, i.e. they improve start latency and duration of sensory and motor blockade and enable reduction of cumulative dose of LA and reduction of adverse effects on cardiac and nervous system. Nowadays, there is a huge variety of drugs that can be administered in combination with LA, and they, in general, can be divided into opioid and non-opioid adjuvants. The administration of opioids in RA over an extended time period was accompanied by some negative characteristics as respiratory depression, nausea, vomiting. So, their usage is still under a special control. Due to the positive effects shown by drugs from non-opioid adjuvants group (e.g. adrenaline, alpha adrenergic agonists, steroids, magnesium, midazolam, ketamine etc.), indications for their administration broadened. However, there are still some restrains in clinical practice based on the fact that neurotoxicity and demonstration of neurological complications in regional anesthesia haven't been properly researched yet.

[Increase in New Approvals of Strong Opioid Medications in Switzerland]

Increase in New Approvals of Strong Opioid Medications in Switzerland Abstract. Consumption of pain medication, especially opioids, has risen sharply since 2000, both worldwide and in Switzerland. However, it is unknown whether this increased use is associated with an increase in new approvals of pain medications. An analysis of new approvals of painkillers in Switzerland showed a significant increase from the year 2000 onwards. The majority of new registrations were strong opioid preparations, while the trend in new registrations of non-opioid painkillers was decreasing. Furthermore, the treatment duration of newly approved strong opioids increased significantly from the year 2000 onwards, which may lead to a higher risk of overdoses or dependence.

A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluation Studies of Drug-Based Non-Malignant Chronic Pain Treatment

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Chronic pain is a highly prevalent problem, involving high costs and seriously affecting a patient's quality of life. This review aimed to systematically review economic evaluations of pharmacological-based treatments for non-malignant chronic pain and to compare different treatment approaches with regard to their economic profile.

METHODS

PubMed and Scopus were systematically searched in April 2016. Studies were included if quality-adjusted life years and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were reported. Quality assessment was carried out by using La Torre's weighted scale on the Drummond checklist. Costs were converted into US$2014.

RESULTS

Fourteen economic evaluations met the inclusion criteria. Three treatment categories identified were: opioids, anticonvulsants, and anti-depressants. Compared to anticonvulsants and antidepressant, opioids had lower ICER. Transdermal buprenorphine showed an ICER of about US$11,000.00 while pregabalin showed an ICER of US$19,200. Studies included showed a diversity of methodological approaches, such as different modeling approaches and different perspectives (NHS and private payer).

CONCLUSION

There are limitations to the success of making appropriate recommendations about which treatment is most cost-effective due to considerable variability between treatments, pain syndromes, and drug dosages. Opioids may have lower ICER, but the societal implications of the opioid epidemic and overdose deaths should be taken into account when coming to general conclusions about their cost-effectiveness. To ensure correct resource allocation as well as the best benefit for patients, uniform and standardized approaches of cost and outcome measurement in economic evaluations of chronic are needed.

Vaso-occlusive crisis in sickle cell disease: current paradigm on pain management

This narrative review aims to highlight the current paradigm on pain management in sickle cell vaso-occlusive crisis. It specifically examines the pathophysiologic mechanisms of sickle cell pain as well as the pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic methods of pain management. Recurrent painful episodes constitute the major morbidity in sickle cell disease (SCD). While adolescents and young adults experience mostly acute episodic nociceptive pain, it is now recognized that a significant number of adult patients develop chronic neuropathic and centralized pain. In fact, current evidence points to an age-dependent increase in the frequency of SCD patients with chronic pain. Management of disease-related pain should be based on its pathophysiologic mechanisms instead of using recommendations from other non-SCD pain syndromes. Pain management in vaso-occlusive crisis is complex and requires multiple interventions such as pharmacologic, nonpharmacologic, and preventive therapeutic interventions. Pharmacologic treatment involves the use of non-opioid and opioid analgesics, and adjuvants - either singly or in combination - depending on the severity of pain. The basic approach is to treat SCD pain symptomatically with escalating doses of non-opioid and opioid analgesics. Given the moderate-to-severe nature of the pain usually experienced in this form of SCD crisis, opioids form the bedrock of pharmacologic treatment. Multimodal analgesia and structured, individualized analgesic regimen appear more effective in achieving better treatment outcomes. Although the current evidence is still limited on the supportive role of cognitive behavioral therapy in pain management, this nonpharmacologic approach is reportedly effective, but needs further exploration as a possible adjunct in analgesia.

Survey of chronic pain in Chile - prevalence and treatment, impact on mood, daily activities and quality of life

Background and aims The prevalence of chronic non-cancer pain has not been specifically reported in Chile. Methods In order to assess its prevalence and impact, we designed a tool based on previously published survey studies. We analyzed a sample of 784 subjects to determine the prevalence of chronic non-cancer pain, with a maximum variability of 50%, a confidence interval (CI) of 95%, and an estimation error of 3.5%. Finally, a cross-sectional cell phone survey was conducted on a nationally representative probability sample of 865 subjects of over 18 years, in November 2013. The prevalence of chronic non-cancer pain was estimated by using expansion factors according to national projections by age group and gender, from the Chilean National Institute of Statistics for the year 2010. Results The estimated prevalence of chronic non-cancer pain was 32.1% (95% CI: 26.5-36.0). The respondents with chronic non-cancer pain presented the following results: 65.7% had moderate pain, and 20.8%, severe pain; 65.6% had somatic pain, 31.7% neuropathic pain, and 2.7% visceral pain. Approximately 70% reported they were receiving some kind of pharmacological treatment with certain frequency. In 64.9%, medication was prescribed by a physician. The prevalence of sick leave in workers was 30.22%, with a median duration of 14 days (interquartile range: 14; range: 1-60). Conclusions Chronic non-oncological pain occurs in 32% of Chilean adults. These figures provide the first measurement of chronic non-cancer pain in the Chilean population. Implications Chronic non-oncological pain impact as a public health problem is revealed, given the high prevalence found, and the elevated private and social costs involved.

Trends in analgesic consumption in France over the last 10 years and comparison of patterns across Europe

AIMS

The aims of the present study were to describe the consumption trends of three groups of analgesics (non-opioids, and mild and strong opioids) between 2006 and 2015 in France, and compare this pattern of use with six European countries in 2015.

METHODS

Annual drugs sales were extracted from the French national authority's consumption database, and from the IMS Multinational Integrated Data Analysis System and national databases for European countries.

RESULTS

The use of mild opioids in France was found to have decreased by 53% over the past 10 years, owing to the declining use of dextropropoxyphene combinations, along with an increase in the use of non-opioids and strong opioids (from 72 to 93, and 2 to 2.8 defined daily doses/1000 inhabitants/day, respectively). Paracetamol, the most consumed analgesic, increased over this period, particularly for the adult high dose (+140%). The use of tramadol and codeine combinations also increased, by 62% and 42%, respectively. Morphine remained the most used strong opioid, although there were also large increases in the consumption of oxycodone (+613%) and fentanyl (+263% and +72% for transmucosal and transdermal forms, respectively). A comparison of the patterns of use in Europe in 2015 showed a higher consumption of mild and strong opioids in the UK. France ranked first and third place, respectively, for paracetamol and mild opioid consumption, whereas its use of strong opioids was among the lowest.

CONCLUSIONS

Paracetamol consumption is clearly highest in France, whereas its use of strong opioids is among the lowest in Europe, although its consumption of oxycodone has increased significantly. Further studies are required specifically to monitor these drugs.

Resource allocation issues concerning early palliative care

BACKGROUND

The concept of early palliative care (ePC) has received enormous recognition in the field of cancer care. Increasing evidence supports this approach, but outside the research arena, the implementation of sustainable clinical concepts rely on solutions for practical problems such as funding issues. Therefore, the article presented here discusses economic considerations associated with different concepts of ePC.

MAIN POINTS

The specialist approach: the most frequently cited ePC trials assessing examine the concurrent provision of specialist palliative care in addition to routine care. Most of this specialist palliative care has been provided by multiprofessional teams in an outpatient setting of tertiary care centers. A number of the research groups have also provided data about the resource utilizations of this approach. From this, a rough estimate of the cost of early specialist palliative care can be derived. Yet, in many parts of North-America, Europe and other regions, funding modes for such outpatient specialist palliative care is non-existent. Recent studies have pointed out that ePC for inpatients is associated with cost-savings. These cost savings are even more pronounced the earlyer specialist palliative care is integrated in the care for the patients. Strengthening of general palliative care: most institutions recommend that palliative care as an approach should be strengthened as a part of standard care. To accomplish this, different measures such as teaching of general palliative care competencies of oncology teams, routine symptom assessment or the mandatory implementation of advanced care planning in care trajectories are being promoted. Due to the heterogeneity of these approaches, cost calculations are difficult, but can be weight against cost-saving estimated associated with for example less utilization of futile diagnostic and therapeutic procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Researchers, health care providers and policy makers need to distinguish the different concepts behind ePC before providing cost estimates. Detailed information is provided in this article. From our view, it is evident that neither of the two approaches (general vs. specialist) can be a one-or-the-other choice. Successful ePC will most likely rely on a joint effort of all medical disciplines and profession in close cooperation and early integration of specialist PC services. For such an approach, additional resources may be necessary, but from the public health perspective, cost-savings can also be assumed.

Pain management of the cancer patient

INTRODUCTION

Cancer pain is one of the most important symptoms of malignant disease, which has a major impact on the quality of life of cancer patients. Therefore, it needs to be treated appropriately after a careful assessment of the types and causes of pain.

AREAS COVERED

The mainstay of cancer pain management is systemic pharmacotherapy. This is, in principle, still based on the WHO guidelines initially published in 1986. Although these have been validated, they are not evidence-based. The principles are a stepladder approach using non-opioids, weak and then strong opioids. In addition, adjuvants can be added at any step to address specific situations such as bone or neuropathic pain. Patients, even if they are on long-acting opioids, need to be provided with immediate-release opioids for breakthrough pain. In case of inefficacy or severe adverse effects of one opioid, rotation to another opioid is recommended.

EXPERT OPINION

There is a major need for more and better randomized controlled trials in the setting of cancer pain as the lack of evidence is hampering the improvement of current treatment guidelines.