Search

Background: Practice guidelines recommend nonpharmacologic and nonopioid therapies as first-line pain treatment for acute pain. However, little is known about their utilization generally and among individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) for whom opioid and other pharmacologic therapies carry greater risk of harm., Objective: To determine the association between a pre-existing OUD diagnosis and treatment of acute low back pain (aLBP)., Design: Retrospective cohort study using 2016-2019 Medicare data., Participants: Fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries with a new episode of aLBP., Main Measures: The main independent variable was OUD diagnosis measured prior to the first LBP claim (i.e., index date). Using multivariable logistic regressions, we assessed the following outcomes measured within 30 days of the index date: (1) nonpharmacologic therapies (physical therapy and/or chiropractic care), and (2) prescription opioids. Among opioid recipients, we further assessed opioid dose and co-prescription of gabapentin. Analyses were conducted overall and stratified by receipt of physical therapy, chiropractic care, opioid fills, or gabapentin fills during the 6 months before the index date., Key Results: We identified 1,263,188 beneficiaries with aLBP, of whom 3.0% had OUD. Two-thirds (65.8%) did not receive pain treatments of interest at baseline. Overall, nonpharmacologic therapy receipt was less prevalent and opioid and nonopioid pharmacologic therapies were more common among beneficiaries with OUD than those without OUD. Beneficiaries with OUD had lower odds of receiving nonpharmacologic therapies (aOR = 0.62, 99%CI = 0.58-0.65) and higher odds of prescription opioid receipt (aOR = 2.24, 99%CI = 2.17-2.32). OUD also was significantly associated with increased odds of opioid doses ≥ 90 morphine milligram equivalents/day (aOR = 2.43, 99%CI = 2.30-2.56) and co-prescription of gabapentin (aOR = 1.15, 99%CI = 1.09-1.22). Similar associations were observed in stratified groups though magnitudes differed., Conclusions: Medicare beneficiaries with aLBP and OUD underutilized nonpharmacologic pain therapies and commonly received opioids at high doses and with gabapentin. Complementing the promulgation of practice guidelines with implementation science could improve the uptake of evidence-based nonpharmacologic therapies for aLBP., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Society of General Internal Medicine.)

Introduction: Pain treatment guidelines prioritize nonopioid therapies over opioid medications to prevent opioid-related harms. We examined trends in receipt and intensity of nonpharmacologic, nonopioid medication, and opioid therapies among Medicare beneficiaries., Methods: Using a 20% national random sample of Medicare data from 2016 to 2019, we identified fee-for-service beneficiaries with ≥2 diagnoses of back, neck, fibromyalgia, or osteoarthritis/joint pain annually. We excluded beneficiaries with cancer. We calculated annual proportions of beneficiaries who received physical therapy (PT), chiropractic care, gabapentin, and opioids, overall and in demographic, geographic, and clinical subgroups. We estimated the intensity of therapies using the annual number of visitsor prescription fills, prescription days' supply, and opioid dose., Results: During 2016-2019, PT receipt increased (22.8% to 25.5%) and the mean number of visits among recipients of PT went from 12 to 13. Chiropractic receipt (~18%) and mean annual visits (~10) remained unchanged. The prevalence of gabapentin receipt was stable at ~22% and the mean annual number of fills was unchanged though gabapentin days increased slightly. Opioid prescribing decreased (56.7% to 46.5%) and reductions in opioid dose and duration were observed. Opioid receipt was high among beneficiaries who were under 65 years, American Indian/Alaska Native, Black/African American, or had opioid use disorder (OUD), in whom nonpharmacologic therapies were also received the least., Conclusion: Utilization of nonopioid therapies lagged opioids among Medicare beneficiaries with musculoskeletal pain, with limited changes from 2016 to 2019. As opioid prescribing declines and alternative pain therapy receipt remains low, there are potential increasing risks of pain going untreated or undertreated and individuals seeking illicit opioids to alleviate their pain., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest No conflict declared., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Cancer is a major reason for concurrent prescription of opioids with other sedating medications-particularly benzodiazepines and gabapentinoids-yet population-based assessments of the extent and predictors of concurrent prescribing among clinically and demographically diverse patients with cancer are lacking., Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with non-metastatic cancer using North Carolina cancer registry data linked with Medicare and private insurance claims (2013-2016). We used modified Poisson regression to assess associations of patient characteristic with adjusted relative risk (aRR) of new concurrent prescribing of opioids with benzodiazepines or gabapentinoids after diagnosis., Results: Overall, 15% of patients were concurrently prescribed opioids with benzodiazepines or gabapentinoids. Characteristics independently associated with an increased risk of concurrent prescribing included cancer type (e.g., aRR cervical vs. colorectal cancer: 1.55, 95% CI: 1.12-2.14); prior use of opioids (aRR: 2.43, 95% CI:2.21-2.67), benzodiazepines (aRR: 4.08, 95% CI: 3.72-4.48), or gabapentinoids (3.82, 95% CI: 3.31-4.39), and premorbid mental health conditions, including substance use disorder (aRR: 1.27, 95% CI: 1.05-1.54). Black and Hispanic patients were less likely to experience concurrent prescribing (aRR, Black vs. White: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.15-0.83; aRR, Hispanic vs. White: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.66-0.85)., Conclusion: Approximately 1 in 7 patients with cancer was concurrently prescribed opioids with other sedating medications. Associations between patient characteristics and risk of concurrent prescribing highlight predictors of concurrent prescribing and suggest a rationale for systematic assessment of substance use history at diagnosis. Future research could explore inequitable pain and symptom management and investigate risk of adverse medication-related events., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

People living with HIV (PLWH) have high levels of functional impairment due to pain, also called pain interference. Long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) is commonly prescribed for chronic pain among PLWH. We sought to better understand the predictors of pain interference, measured with the Brief Pain Inventory Interference subscale (BPI-I), among PLWH with chronic pain on LTOT. Using a prospective cohort of PLWH on LTOT we developed a model to identify predictors of increased pain interference over 1 year of follow up. Participants ( n  = 166) were 34% female, 72% African American with a median age of 55 years, and 40% had severe pain interference (BPI-I ≥ 7). In multivariable models, substance use disorder, depressive symptoms, PTSD symptoms, financial instability, and higher opioid doses were associated with increased pain interference. Measures of behavioral health and socioeconomic status had the most consistent association with pain interference. In contrast, the biomedical aspects of chronic pain and LTOT - comorbidities, duration of pain - were not predictive of pain interference. PLWH with chronic pain on LTOT with lower socioeconomic status and behavioral health symptoms have higher risk of pain interference. Addressing the social determinants of health and providing access to behavioral health services could improve patients' pain-related functional status.

Objective: Guidelines recommend that clinicians make decisions about opioid tapering for patients with chronic pain using a benefit-to-harm framework and engaging patients. Studies have not examined clinician documentation about opioid tapering using this framework., Design and Setting: Thematic and content analysis of clinician documentation about opioid tapering in patients' medical records in a large academic health system., Methods: Medical records were reviewed for patients aged 18 or older, without cancer, who were prescribed stable doses of long-term opioid therapy between 10/2015 and 10/2016 then experienced an opioid taper (dose reduction ≥30%) between 10/2016 and 10/2017. Inductive thematic analysis of clinician documentation within six months of taper initiation was conducted to understand rationale for taper, and deductive content analysis was conducted to determine the frequencies of a priori elements of a benefit-to-harm framework., Results: Thematic analysis of 39 patients' records revealed 1) documented rationale for tapering prominently cited potential harms of continuing opioids, rather than observed harms or lack of benefits; 2) patient engagement was variable and disagreement with tapering was prominent. Content analysis found no patients' records with explicit mention of benefit-to-harm assessments. Benefits of continuing opioids were mentioned in 56% of patients' records, observed harms were mentioned in 28%, and potential harms were mentioned in 90%., Conclusions: In this study, documentation of opioid tapering focused on potential harms of continuing opioids, indicated variable patient engagement, and lacked a complete benefit-to-harm framework. Future initiatives should develop standardized ways of incorporating a benefit-to-harm framework and patient engagement into clinician decisions and documentation about opioid tapering., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Academy of Pain Medicine. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Marijuana use is common among patients on long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) for chronic pain, but there is a lack of evidence to guide clinicians' response., Objective: To generate expert consensus about responding to marijuana use among patients on LTOT., Design: Analysis from an online Delphi study., Setting/subjects: Clinician experts in pain and opioid management across the United States., Methods: Participants generated management strategies in response to marijuana use without distinction between medical and nonmedical use, then rated the importance of each management strategy from 1 (not at all important) to 9 (extremely important). A priori rules for consensus were established, and disagreement was explored using cases. Thematic analysis of free-text responses examined factors that influenced participants' decision-making., Results: Of 42 participants, 64% were internal medicine physicians. There was consensus that it is not important to taper opioids as an initial response to marijuana use. There was disagreement about the importance of tapering opioids if there is a pattern of repeated marijuana use without clinical suspicion for a cannabis use disorder (CUD) and consensus that tapering is of uncertain importance if there is suspicion for CUD. Three themes influenced experts' perceptions of the importance of tapering: 1) benefits and harms of marijuana for the individual patient, 2) a spectrum of belief about the overall riskiness of marijuana use, and 3) variable state laws or practice policies., Conclusions: Experts disagree and are uncertain about the importance of opioid tapering for patients with marijuana use. Experts were influenced by patient factors, provider beliefs, and marijuana policy, highlighting the need for further research., (© 2019 American Academy of Pain Medicine. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Medical marijuana is legal in 29 US states and the District of Columbia: both HIV and chronic pain are "approved conditions" for receipt. Chronic pain is common among people living with HIV (PLWH). We anticipate PLWH will question their providers about medical marijuana for chronic pain. We examined marijuana use and its associations with pain, opioid dose, and HIV viral suppression among PLWH receiving chronic opioid therapy., Methods: PLWH prescribed chronic opioid therapy were recruited into the Targeting Effective Analgesia in Clinics for HIV cohort. The main exposure variable was any past 12-month marijuana use. The primary outcomes were (1) opioid misuse (≥9 on the Current Opioid Misuse Measure) and (2) opioid dose (morphine equivalent daily dose). HIV viral load (VL) suppression (<200 copies/μL) and pain severity and interference using the Brief Pain Inventory were exploratory outcomes., Results: Participants (n = 166) were men (65%), Black (72%), and had an undetectable VL (89%). We found no significant association between current marijuana use and opioid misuse, opioid dose, or pain. Current marijuana use was associated with 3.03 times the odds of having a detectable VL (95% odds ratio: 1.11-8.31, P = 0.03) while controlling for depressive symptoms and other substance use., Discussion: We did not detect an association between marijuana use and opioid misuse behaviors, opioid dose, or pain. In an exploratory analysis, current marijuana use was associated with 3× greater odds of having a detectable VL. This study provides insights into potential consequences of marijuana use among PLWH with chronic pain.

Background: People living with HIV (PLWH) commonly report marijuana use for chronic pain, although there is limited empirical evidence to support its use. There is hope that marijuana may reduce prescription opioid use. Our objective was to investigate whether marijuana use among PLWH who have chronic pain is associated with changes in pain severity and prescribed opioid use (prescribed opioid initiation and discontinuation)., Methods: Participants completed self-report measures of chronic pain and marijuana use at an index visit and were followed up for 1 year in the Center for AIDS Research Network of Integrated Clinical Systems (CNICS). Self-reported marijuana use was the exposure variable. Outcome variables were changes in pain and initiation or discontinuation of opioids during the study period. The relationship between exposure and outcomes was assessed using generalized linear models for pain and multivariable binary logistic regression models for opioid initiation/discontinuation., Results: Of 433 PLWH and chronic pain, 28% reported marijuana use in the past 3 months. Median pain severity at the index visit was 6.3/10 (interquartile range 4.7-8.0). Neither increases nor decreases in marijuana use were associated with changes in pain severity, and marijuana use was not associated with either lower odds of opioid initiation or higher odds of opioid discontinuation., Conclusions: We did not find evidence that marijuana use in PLWH is associated with improved pain outcomes or reduced opioid prescribing. This suggests that caution is warranted when counseling PLWH about potential benefits of recreational or medical marijuana.

Context: Chronic pain, or pain lasting more than three months, is common among cancer survivors, who are often prescribed long-term opioid therapy (LTOT)., Objective: Our objective was to explore palliative care providers' experiences with managing chronic pain in cancer survivors prescribed LTOT, specifically in ambulatory palliative care settings, and their strategies for overcoming challenges., Methods: We recruited providers through leading national palliative care organizations who manage chronic pain in cancer survivors. Asked to consider only cancer survivors with chronic pain when responding, participants completed an online survey that included questions about use of opioid risk mitigation tools, confidence in addressing opioid misuse behaviors and discussing/recommending management approaches, and access to addiction treatment., Results: Of 157 participants, most were physicians (83%) or nurse practitioners (15%). Most reported using opioid risk mitigation tools such as urine drug testing (71%), opioid treatment agreements (85%), and practitioner database monitoring programs (94%). Participants were confident (7-8/10) managing the most commonly encountered opioid misuse behaviors (missing appointments, marijuana use, and using more opioids than prescribed) and in their ability to recommend nonpharmacologic and nonopioid pharmacologic treatments for chronic pain (10/10). They were least confident prescribing naloxone or managing addiction (5/10); only 27% reported having training or systems in place to address addiction. Only 13% had a waiver to prescribe buprenorphine., Conclusion: Palliative care providers are comfortable with many aspects of managing chronic pain in cancer survivors on LTOT, although challenges persist, including the lack of systems-based approaches and training in addiction treatment., (Copyright © 2018 American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Chronic pain occurs in up to 85% of persons living with HIV and is commonly treated with long-term opioid therapy (LTOT). We investigated the impact of chronic pain and LTOT on HIV outcomes., Methods: This was prospective cohort study conducted between July 2015 and July 2016 in 5 HIV primary care clinics. Chronic pain was defined as ≥moderate pain for ≥3 months on the Brief Chronic Pain Questionnaire. Chronic pain and LTOT were assessed at an index visit. Suboptimal retention, defined as at least one "no-show" to primary care, and virologic failure were measured over the subsequent year. Multivariable logistic regression models were built for each outcome adjusting for site., Results: Among 2334 participants, 25% had chronic pain, 27% had suboptimal retention, 12% had virologic failure, and 19% were prescribed LTOT. Among individuals not on LTOT, chronic pain was associated with increased odds of suboptimal retention [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.46, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.10 to 1.93, P = 0.009] and virologic failure (aOR 1.97, 95% CI: 1.39 to 2.80, P < 0.001). Among individuals with chronic pain, there was no association between LTOT and retention, but LTOT was associated with lower rates of virologic failure (aOR 0.56, 95% CI: 0.33 to 0.96, P = 0.03)., Conclusions: Chronic pain in participants not on LTOT was associated with virologic failure. This reinforces the need to identify effective chronic pain treatments for persons living with HIV and investigate their impact on HIV outcomes. The apparent protective association between LTOT and virologic failure in those with pain merits further exploration.

Background: Current guideline-recommended monitoring of patients prescribed long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) for chronic pain will likely result in increased identification of behaviors of concern for misuse and addiction, but there is a dearth of empiric evidence about how these behaviors should be managed., Objective: To establish expert consensus about treatment approaches for common and challenging concerning behaviors that arise among patients on LTOT., Design: We used a Delphi approach, which allows for generation of consensus., Participants: Participants were clinical experts in chronic pain and opioid prescribing recruited from professional societies and other expert groups., Main Measures: The Delphi process was conducted online, and consisted of an initial brainstorming round to identify common and challenging behaviors, a second round to identify management strategies for each behavior, and two rounds to establish consensus and explore disagreement/uncertainty., Key Results: Forty-two participants completed round 1, 22 completed round 2, 30 completed round 3, and 28 completed round 4. Half of round 1 participants were female (52%), and the majority were white (83%). Most (71%) were physicians, and most participants practiced in academic primary (40%) or specialty care (19%).The most frequently cited common and challenging behaviors were missing appointments, taking opioids for symptoms other than pain, using more opioid medication than prescribed, asking for an increase in opioid dose, aggressive behavior, and alcohol and other substance use. Across behaviors, participants agreed that patient education and information gathering were important approaches. Participants also agreed that stopping opioids is not important initially, but if initial approaches do not work, tapering opioids and stopping opioids immediately may become important approaches., Conclusions: This study presents clinical expert consensus on how to manage concerning behaviors among patients on LTOT. Future research is needed to investigate how implementing these management strategies would impact patient outcomes, practice and policy.

An urgent need exists to better understand the transition from short-term opioid use to unintended prolonged opioid use (UPOU). The purpose of this work is to propose a conceptual framework for understanding UPOU that posits the influence of 3 principal domains that include the characteristics of (1) individual patients, (2) the practice environment, and (3) opioid prescribers. Although no standardized method exists for developing a conceptual framework, the process often involves identifying corroborative evidence, leveraging expert opinion to identify factors for inclusion in the framework, and developing a graphic depiction of the relationships between the various factors and the clinical problem of interest. Key patient characteristics potentially associated with UPOU include (1) medical and mental health conditions; (2) pain etiology; (3) individual affective, behavioral, and neurophysiologic reactions to pain and opioids; and (4) sociodemographic factors. Also, UPOU could be influenced by structural and health care policy factors: (1) the practice environment, including the roles of prescribing clinicians, adoption of relevant practice guidelines, and clinician incentives or disincentives, and (2) the regulatory environment. Finally, characteristics inherent to clinicians that could influence prescribing practices include (1) training in pain management and opioid use; (2) personal attitudes, knowledge, and beliefs regarding the risks and benefits of opioids; and (3) professionalism. As the gatekeeper to opioid access, the behavior of prescribing clinicians directly mediates UPOU, with the 3 domains interacting to determine this behavior. This proposed conceptual framework could guide future research on the topic and allow plausible hypothesis-based interventions to reduce UPOU., (Copyright © 2017 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Given the sharp rise in opioid prescribing and heightened recognition of opioid addiction and overdose, opioid safety has become a priority. Clinical guidelines on long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) for chronic pain consistently recommend routine monitoring and screening for problematic behaviours. Yet, there is no consensus definition regarding what constitutes a problematic behaviour, and recommendations for appropriate management to inform front-line providers, researchers and policymakers are lacking. This creates a barrier to effective guideline implementation. Thus, our objective is to present the protocol for a Delphi study designed to: (1) elicit expert opinion to identify the most important problematic behaviours seen in clinical practice and (2) develop consensus on how these behaviours should be managed in the context of routine clinical care., Methods/analysis: We will include clinical experts, defined as individuals who provide direct patient care to adults with chronic pain who are on LTOT in an ambulatory setting, and for whom opioid prescribing for chronic non-malignant pain is an area of expertise. The Delphi study will be conducted online in 4 consecutive rounds. Participants will be asked to list problematic behaviours and identify which behaviours are most common and challenging. They will then describe how they would manage the most frequently occurring common and challenging behaviours, rating the importance of each management strategy. Qualitative analysis will be used to categorise behaviours and management strategies, and consensus will be based on a definition established a priori., Ethics/dissemination: This study has been approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). This study will generate Delphi-based expert consensus on the management of problematic behaviours that arise in individuals on LTOT, which we will publish and disseminate to appropriate professional societies. Ultimately, our findings will provide guidance to front-line providers, researchers and policymakers., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Opioids are often prescribed for chronic pain, and opioid risks such as overdose and death are heightened when opioids are co-prescribed with other sedating medications. We investigated factors associated with chronic opioid prescription, alone and in combination with benzodiazepines and muscle relaxants, in a clinical cohort of individuals with HIV. We used multivariable logistic regression models to determine participant clinical and demographic characteristics that are associated with chronic prescription of opioids or chronic co-prescription of opioids with sedating medications. Among 1474 participants, chronic prescription of opioids occurred in 253 individuals (17.2 %), and chronic co-prescription occurred in 90 individuals (6.1 %). Age >50, public insurance as compared to private insurance, and symptoms of depression and anxiety were significantly associated with chronic opioid prescription and chronic co-prescription. Our findings raise concern that opioid prescription and co-prescription of sedating medications occurs disproportionately in patients for whom use is riskier.

Background: Patients, providers, communities and health systems have struggled to achieve balance between access to opioid treatment for chronic pain and its potential harmful consequences: especially misuse, addiction and overdose. We developed an interdisciplinary clinic embedded within primary care (the Opioid Reassessment Clinic-ORC) with the goal of improving the quality of care of patients with co-occurring chronic pain and issues related to opioid safety, efficacy and/or misuse., Case Descriptions: We present three cases referred to the ORC that highlight complex clinical scenarios related to assessment and treatment of patients with chronic pain and issues related to opioid safety, efficacy and misuse., Discussion and Evaluation: In the context of the three cases, with respect to assessment, we discuss: making the diagnosis of opioid use disorder; allowing the patient space to endorse lack of efficacy; identification of co-occurring hazardous alcohol use; and recognizing barriers to multimodal pain care. With respect to treatment, we discuss: making a change in treatment with which the patient may not agree; effectiveness of buprenorphine/naloxone for the treatment of chronic pain; responding to low efficacy; and making continued opioid therapy contingent on engagement with substance abuse treatment., Conclusions: The core components of our approach-biopsychosocial assessment and multimodal treatment planning with an emphasis on promoting functional goals and safety using clear communication and a patient-centered stance-should guide providers in the management of similar clinical scenarios. More evidence is needed to definitively guide specific interventions and points of clinical equipoise.

Background: Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients have a high prevalence of chronic pain and opioid use, making HIV care a critical setting for improving the safety of opioid prescribing. Little is known about HIV treatment providers' perspectives about opioid prescribing to patients with chronic pain., Methods: The authors administered a questionnaire and conducted semistructured telephone interviews with 18 HIV treatment providers (infectious disease specialists, general internists, family medicine physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants) in Bronx, NY. Open-ended interview questions focused on providers' experiences, beliefs, and attitudes about opioid prescribing and about the use of guideline-based opioid prescribing practices (conservative prescribing, and monitoring for and responding to misuse). Transcripts were thematically analyzed using a modified grounded theory approach., Results: Eighteen HIV treatment providers included 13 physicians, four nurse practitioners, and one physician assistant. They were 62% female, 56% white, and practiced as HIV treatment providers for a mean of 14.6 years. Most reported always or almost always using opioid treatment agreements (56%) and urine drug testing (61%) with their patients on long-term opioid therapy. HIV treatment providers tended to view opioid prescribing for chronic pain within the "HIV paradigm," a set of priorities and principles defined by three key themes: (1) primacy of HIV goals, (2) familiarity with substance use, and (3) the clinician as ally. The HIV paradigm sometimes supported, and sometimes conflicted with, guideline-based opioid prescribing practices. For HIV treatment providers, perceived alignment with the HIV paradigm determined whether and how guideline-based opioid prescribing practices were adopted. For example, the primacy of HIV goals superseded conservative opioid prescribing when providers prescribed opioids with the goal of retaining patients in HIV care., Conclusion: These findings highlight unique factors in HIV care that influence adoption of guideline-based opioid prescribing practices. These factors should be considered in future research and initiatives to address opioid prescribing in HIV care.

Chronic pain is common in individuals with HIV infection. The primary goal of treatment of chronic pain is not only to improve pain but also to improve physical and emotional function. Patients with chronic pain should be assessed for concurrent psychiatric and substance use disorders, as these conditions often coexist. Treatment of chronic pain may have limited success in the absence of treatment of psychiatric disorders. Treatments for chronic pain include nonopioid pharmacologic therapies and nonpharmacologic therapies (eg, cognitive and behavioral therapy, physical therapy), and the latter option is often the most effective for improving patient function. Care must be taken when initiating or continuing treatment with opioids, and the risks and benefits of treatment with opioids should be regularly assessed. This article summarizes a presentation by Jessica S. Merlin, MD, MBA, at the IAS-USA continuing education program held in New York, New York, in March 2015.