Psychological Barriers to the Use of Opioid Analgesics for Treating Pain in Patients With Advanced Recurrent Cancer: A Multicenter Cohort Study

Background

We aimed to gain insight into psychological barriers toward initiation of strong opioid analgesic use in patients with advanced recurrent cancer.

Methods

This study included 46 patients who were prescribed with opioid analgesics for advanced recurrent cancer. The primary outcome was psychological barriers assessed using the Japanese version of the Barriers Questionnaire-II (JBQ-II). The secondary outcomes were psychological changes and pain relief one week after the induction of strong opioid analgesics.

Results

The mean age of participants was 63.6 years. Furthermore, 26.1% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of ≥3. The mean JBQ-II total score was 1.97 (95% confidence interval: 1.75-2.19). At the initiation of opioid therapy, there was no difference in the total scores between the baseline and one week later. Nevertheless, there was a significant difference in the subscale "disease progression" score (mean 2.97 vs. 2.59, difference in means 0.38, standard error 0.16, p = 0.026). Personalized Pain Goal (PPG) was achieved in about half of the participants, and a trend toward a higher score in the subscale "harmful effects" (concern about adverse events) was observed in those who did not achieve PPG.

Conclusion

This study showed that patients with advanced recurrent cancer have psychological barriers to opioid induction. The relationship between the presence of psychological barriers before and after induction of opioid analgesics and the speed of pain improvement was determined. The results may provide fundamental information for prospective intervention studies to develop individualized education programs for patients with psychological barriers to opioids.Clinical Trial Registration Number UMIN000042443.

Is Acetaminophen Beneficial in Patients With Cancer Pain Who are on Strong Opioids? A Randomized Controlled Trial

CONTEXT

Pain is common among cancer patients. The evidence recommends using strong opioids in moderate to severe cancer pain. No conclusive evidence supports the effectiveness of adding acetaminophen to patients with cancer pain who are already using this regime.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy of acetaminophen in hospitalized cancer patients with moderate to severe pain receiving strong opioids.

METHODS

In this randomized blinded clinical trial, hospitalized cancer patients with moderate or severe acute pain managed with strong opioids were randomized to acetaminophen or placebo. The primary outcome was pain intensity difference between baseline and 48 hours using the Visual Numeric Rating Scales (VNRS). Secondary outcomes included change in morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD), and patients' perception of improved pain control.

RESULTS

Among 112 randomized patients, 56 patients received placebo, 56 acetaminophen. Mean (standard deviation [SD]) decrease in pain intensity (VNRS) at 48 hours were 2.7 (2.5) and 2.3 (2.3), respectively (95% Confidence Interval (CI) [-0.49; 1.32]; P = 0.37). Mean (SD) change in MEDD was 13.9 (33.0) mg/day and 22.4 (57.7), respectively (95% CI [-9.24; 26.1]; P = 0.35). The proportion of patients perceiving pain control improvement after 48 hours was 82% in the placebo and 80% in the acetaminophen arms (P = 0.81).

CONCLUSION

Among patients with cancer pain on strong opioid regime, acetaminophen may not improve pain control, or decrease total opioid use. These results add to the current evidence available suggesting not to use acetaminophen as an adjuvant for advanced cancer patients with moderate to severe cancer pain who are on strong opioids.

Opioid prescription patterns in the province of Las Palmas, Canary Islands, Spain (2016-2020): differences between urban and rural areas

Introduction: The use of opioids has increased markedly in the past decades in European countries, especially for treatment of non-cancer pain including painful chronic musculoskeletal conditions. However, there are some notable differences in the relative levels of use between geographical areas and some distinct, context-specific patterns of weak and strong opioid use. The aim of this work is to describe real world trends in dosage forms and population exposure in the prescription opioid use on isolated geographically area: The Canary Islands of Gran Canaria, Lanzarote and Fuerteventura, Spain. For this, several factors such as living in a rural or urban area, population over 65 years of age, population density or socioeconomic status were analyzed. Methods: Data were extracted from the wholesalers who supply the community pharmacies at the population level. Prescription opioid use was measured as defined daily doses (DDD) per 1,000 inhabitants per day. A model based on covariance analysis with two nested fixed factors and one co-variable was used for contrast analysis at different level. Results: The overall DDD per 1000 inhabitants per day and year variation rate in Spain was very similar to that obtained for Gran Canaria and Fuerteventura (0.967 vs. 1.006), although the levels of dispensation were different (14.75 versus 18.24 for Gran Canaria and 12.7 for Fuerteventura, respectively). Lanzarote is completely different in all issues, where the opioid consumption rate remained stable during the study period, but with a decreasing tendency. The dispensation level of strong opioids varied between islands, from 56.41% for Fuerteventura vs. 17.61% for Gran Canaria, although these values remained stable. Tramadol with acetaminophen and Tramadol in monotherapy were the most consumed forms of the weak opioids, whereas Buprenorphine was the most used strong opioid followed by Fentanyl, although demand for it varied between islands, the transdermal formulations were the most frequent pharmaceutical preparation. Conclusion: The differences in prescription opioid use are most likely explained by the opioid prescribing practices in each island, whereas factors such urbanicity level, population age, population density and status socioeconomic does not help to explain the differences in prescription opioid use across rural and urban areas.

Misappropriation of the 1986 WHO analgesic ladder: the pitfalls of labelling opioids as weak or strong

Opioids have a vital role in alleviating pain from cancer and surgery. Despite good intentions, it is now recognised that the original WHO Cancer Pain Relief guidance from 1986, in which opioids were classified as either weak or strong, has been both inadvertently and purposefully misused, thereby contributing to harm from opioid use and misuse. However, the recommendation in the 2018 update of the WHO analgesic ladder that a combination of a high-potency opioid with simple analgesics is better than alternative analgesics for the maintenance of pain relief is also applicable to patients who require short-term opioids. Furthermore, because potential harm through opioid use and misuse is intrinsic to all opioids, whether weak or strong, we argue that the arbitrary classification of opioids either as weak or strong should be discontinued, as this description is not helpful to either prescribers or consumers.

An Italian Expert Consensus on the Use of Opioids for the Management of Chronic Non-Oncological Pain in Clinical Practice: Focus on Buprenorphine

Purpose

The aim of the present work was to evaluate the knowledge and prescriptive habits of clinicians involved in the management of chronic non cancer pain (CNCP), with a special focus on the use of opioids.

Methods

A Delphi method was used. A Board of specialists elaborated and discussed a series of statements, based on available literature and personal clinical expertise, about particularly controversial topics on pain pathophysiology and treatment. A Panel of experts in the field of pain management, selected by the Board, was invited to vote the proposed statements, indicating the level of agreement on a 5-point Likert scale (1: strongly disagree; 2: disagree; 3: partially agree; 4: agree; 5: strongly agree). The threshold for consensus was set at minimum 66.6% of the number of respondents with a level of agreement ≥4 (Agree or Strongly agree).

Results

The Board included 5 pain therapists, 1 pharmacologist and 1 methodology expert and drew up a total of 36 statements (for a total of 40 requested answers)”. A total of 100 clinicians were included in the Expert Panel. Respondents were 89 (89%). Consensus was achieved for 32 out of 40 answers. Most of the lack of consensus was recorded for statements regarding opioids use, and resulted from a low level of agreement (3 on the Likert scale), suggesting a neutral position deriving from a lack of knowledge rather than a strong contrary opinion.

Conclusion

Most of the proposed items reached consensus, suggesting a generally homogeneous approach to CNCP management. However, the lack of consensus recorded for several items regarding opioid use confirms the need to fill important gaps in the knowledge of available agents. A clear explanation of the peculiar pharmacological properties of drugs associated with potential clinical advantages (such as buprenorphine) will help optimize pain treatment in both primary care and hospital settings and improving pain control in CNCP patients.

Educating Pharmacists on the Risks of Strong Opioids With Descriptive and Simulated Experience Risk Formats: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Objectives. High opioid prescription rates in the United States and Europe suggest miscalibrated risk perceptions among those who prescribe, dispense, and take opioids. Findings from cognitive decision science suggest that risk perceptions and behaviors can differ depending on whether people learn about risks by experience or description. This study investigated effects of a descriptive versus an experience-based risk education format on pharmacists’ risk perceptions and counseling behavior in the long-term administration of strong opioids to patients with chronic noncancer pain. Methods. In an exploratory, randomized controlled online trial, 300 German pharmacists were randomly assigned to either a descriptive format (fact box) or a simulated experience format (interactive simulation). Primary Outcome Measures. 1) Objective risk perception, 2) subjective risk perception, and 3) intended and 4) actual counseling behavior. Results. Both risk formats significantly improved pharmacists’ objective risk perception, but pharmacists exposed to the fact box estimated the benefit-harm ratio more accurately than those exposed to the simulation. Both formats proved equally effective in adjusting pharmacists’ subjective risk perception toward a better recognition of opioids’ harms; however, pharmacists receiving the simulation showed a greater change in their actual counseling behavior and higher consistency between their intended and actual counseling than pharmacists receiving the fact box. Conclusion. The simulated experience format was less effective than the descriptive format in improving pharmacists’ objective risk perception, equally effective in motivating pharmacists to counsel patients on less risky treatment alternatives and more effective in changing the reported actual counseling behavior. Implications. These exploratory findings provide important insights into the relevance of the description-experience gap for drug safety and raise questions for future research regarding the specific mechanisms at work.

Transition to high-dose or strong opioids: a population-based study of people initiating opioids in Australia

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Strong and high-dose opioids are associated with opioid overdose and death. The objective of this study was to determine the rate and predictors of transitioning to high-dose or strong opioids among people initiating opioids.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

People initiating opioid analgesics from July 2013 to January 2018 were identified from a random 10% sample of Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme eligible population.

MEASUREMENTS

Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated for the predictors of escalating to ≥ 50 mg oral morphine equivalents (OMEs)/day (cohort 1); ≥ 90 mg OMEs/day (cohort 2) and transitioning from weak opioids to strong opioids (cohort 3) over 12 months of follow-up. Predictors included age, sex, number of comorbidities, history of depression, prior treatment for cancer and selected other medication use.

FINDINGS

In total, 861 691 people initiated opioids at average doses < 50 mg OMEs/day (cohort 1), 874 401 at < 90 mg OMEs/day (cohort 2) and 603 884 initiated weak opioids (cohort 3). Overall, 1.4% of people escalated to doses ≥ 50 mg OMEs/day, 0.8% to doses ≥ 90 mg OMEs/day and 7.3% transitioned to strong opioids. The strongest predictors of transitioning included prior treatment for cancer [cohort 1: HR = 3.19, 95% CI = 3.00-3.40; cohort 2: HR = 4.19, 95% CI = 3.90-4.51; cohort 3: HR = 2.07, 95% CI = 1.95-2.18] and age ≥ 75 years (cohort 1: HR = 3.04, 95% CI = 2.73-3.38; cohort 2: HR = 2.51, 95% CI = 2.17-2.89; cohort 3: HR = 1.88, 95% CI = 1.80-1.96). Females transitioned to high doses and strong opioids less rapidly than males (cohort 1: HR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.76-0.82; cohort 2: HR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.66-0.73; cohort 3: HR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.93-0.96).

CONCLUSIONS

In Australia, more than one in every 13 people initiating weak opioids transition to strong opioids. By extrapolation, more than 26 000 Australian adults initiating opioids escalate to high doses each year. People with cancer treatment history, older people and males transition to strong and high-dose opioids more rapidly than others.

Factors Influencing the Initiation of Strong Opioids in Cancer Patients on Palliative Care: An Audit from a Tertiary Cancer Center in India

Aim

This audit was done to analyze the factors influencing the use of strong opioids in cancer patients receiving comprehensive palliative care from a tertiary institute.

Materials and Methods

Case records of patients registered for palliative care at our center in 3 months were retrospectively reviewed and followed up throughout the course of their illness. Demographic factors, prior treatments, social support system, analgesic use at registration, and use of radiation and adjuvant analgesics were recorded. Strong opioid use and their time of initiation were evaluated, and multivariate analysis was used to identify the factors correlating with the above.

Results

After registration, strong opioids were initiated in 16% of the patients. It was observed that patients younger than 55 years and those with visceral metastases and history of use of weak opioids at the time of registration had a higher probability of being started on strong opioids. Factors associated with a significantly longer strong opioid-free interval were having spouse as primary caregiver, presence of skeletal metastases, use of palliative radiotherapy, and low socioeconomic status.

Conclusion

It is certain that the use of strong opioids for adequate analgesia is a necessity for palliative-care patients. However, optimal utilization of adjunctive analgesic modalities, coupled with good supportive care, can minimize the requirement and duration of strong opioid use, especially in developing countries with limited access to specialist palliative care.

Anticipating the effects of restricting high-dose preparations of strong opioids in Australia: A population-based analysis to inform the current policy debate

PURPOSE

Countries worldwide are developing a variety of strategies to combat the opioid epidemic, such as restricting access to high-strength opioid formulations. We aimed to examine the dispensing patterns of strong opioids by dose units (DUs), age, and sex.

METHODS

We used Australian population-level dispensing data from January 2003 to December 2015 and categorised strong opioids by DU: very low, low, moderate, and high, corresponding to total daily doses of less than or equal to 25, 26 to 50, 51 to 100, and greater than 100 morphine milligramme equivalents, respectively. We measured trends in strong opioid use as dispensings/1000 population/year and stratified dispensing in 2015 by patient age and sex.

RESULTS

From 2003 to 2015, strong opioid dispensing of very low, low, moderate, and high DU increased 6.7-, 6.2-, 2.2-, and 1.8-fold, respectively. The increase in very low and low DU dispensing was driven primarily by oxycodone (5, 10, and 15 mg tablets and capsules) and buprenorphine transdermal patches. In 2015, the number of dispensings/1000 population for very low, low, moderate, and high DU were 180.3, 77.0, 52.7, and 34.8, respectively. Females aged greater than or equal to 85 years had the highest opioid use, ranging from 157.1 dispensings/1000 population for high DU to 2104.5 dispensings/1000 population for very low DU. In contrast, the high DU dispensings in males aged 25 to 64 years exceeded their female counterparts by approximately 1.3-fold.

CONCLUSION

Relative to moderate and high DU strong opioids, dispensing of very low and low DU strong opioids increased dramatically during the study period in Australia. Future studies investigating opioids use and harms in elderly females and males between 25 to 64 years are warranted.

Methadone as a First-Line Opioid in Cancer Pain Management: A Systematic Review

AIM

The objective of this review was to assess the existent evidence for the use of methadone as a first-line therapy in cancer pain management.

METHODS

A systematic literature search on MEDLINE and Embase databases was carried out from each database, setting up the date to August 30, 2017. Studies were included if methadone was a first-line drug as a Step 3 of World Health Organization analgesic ladder, or at low doses (Step 2), if they were conducted in adult patients with cancer pain, and if they contained outcomes on pain- and opioid-related adverse effects.

RESULTS

The initial search yielded 219 records. Ten articles were considered after the initial screening according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. They included three longitudinal open-label studies. In two studies methadone was initiated at low doses (≤10 mg/day). These studies suggested that methadone was effective in providing analgesia and well tolerated as first opioid at different starting doses and in different conditions and settings. Five additional studies were randomized controlled studies with morphine in patients who had received opioids for moderate pain. Methadone, compared with oral morphine, or transdermal fentanyl, either at low (Step 2 level) or relatively higher doses (Step 3 level), provided similar analgesia with similar adverse effects profile with limited dose escalation in time.

CONCLUSION

Available data are not sufficient to draw net conclusion. However, open-label and controlled studies have shown that methadone may be effective as first-line drug in the management of cancer pain, providing analgesia and adverse effect profiles similar to those produced by other opioids. The finding that methadone doses tend to remain stable suggests that metabolic characteristics and extraopioid analgesic effects, as its well antihyperalgesic properties may be interesting potential advantages. Further studies should provide information regarding the long-term use of methadone or the need to switch from methadone to other opioids when a loss of analgesic response occurs.

The role of tapentadol as a strong opioid in cancer pain management: a systematic and critical review

AIM

The aim of this review was to assess the role of tapentadol given at medium-high doses in opioid-tolerant patients for cancer pain management in place of step-3 analgesics.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A systematic literature search was performed out of which six studies and one secondary analysis provided data regarding tapentadol used as a step-3 analgesic for this review. Tapentadol, when used at ≥60 mg of oral morphine equivalents in opioid-tolerant patients with cancer pain, or passing from step-2 doses to ≥60 mg of oral morphine equivalents, was well tolerated and effective and could be considered as a flexible drug to be used for the management of moderate-to-severe cancer pain. The limited occurrence of gastrointestinal adverse effects may be a great advantage in the context of a disease like cancer, where multiple causes contribute to nausea, vomiting, or constipation; however, studies of tapentadol given at doses equivalent to step-3 level have some weaknesses, as data from prospective observational studies are poorly generalizable due to a small number of participants, controlled studies do not clearly show a superiority of tapentadol with respect to other opioids, and the sample size is often small.

CONCLUSIONS

More studies are necessary to confirm the role of tapentadol in cancer patients requiring strong opioids for their pain.

Use of strong opioids for chronic pain in osteoarthritis: an insight into the Latin American reality

INTRODUCTION

Osteoarthritis is the most common cause of arthritis and one of the main causes of chronic pain. Although opioids are frequently employed for chronic pain treatment, their usage for osteoarthritis pain remains controversial due to the associated adverse effects. Most guidelines reserve their use for refractory pain in patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis. The situation is even more complex in Latin America, where the prevalence of insufficient pain treatment is high because of the limited availability and use of strong opioids. Areas covered: In this article we review the epidemiology of osteoarthritis, its socioeconomic burden, its impact as a chronic pain cause and the pharmacological treatment options, giving emphasis to the role of strong opioids, their safety and efficacy, especially in Latin American countries, where restrictions regulate their usage. Expert commentary: Usage of strong opioids is safe and effective in the short-term management of osteoarthritis with moderate to severe pain, when other pharmacological treatments are inadequate and surgery is contraindicated, provided their use adheres to existing guidelines. Educational programs for patients and physicians and further research on treating chronic pain with opioids should be implemented to reduce adverse effects and improve care quality.