Search

BackgroundEfforts to address opioid-involved overdose fatalities have led to widespread implementation of various initiatives to taper (i.e., reduce or discontinue) opioid prescriptions despite a limited understanding of patients' experience.MethodsFrom 2019-2020, we recruited patients with chronic, non-cancer pain who had undergone a reduction in opioid daily dosage of ≥50 % in the past two years at Boston Medical Center or Michigan Medicine. Participants completed semi-structured interviews exploring health history, opioid use, and taper experiences. Inductive analysis, guided by theoretical conceptualizations of structural stigma, identified emergent themes.ResultsAmong 41 participants, three elements of structural stigma were identified across participants' lives. First, participants identified themselves as overlooked subjects of the U.S. opioid crisis, who experienced overprescribing, subsequent stigmatization and surveillance of opioid use (e.g., toxicology screening, "pill counts"), and various tapering initiatives. Second, during the course of pain treatment, participants felt stigmatized and invalidated by cultural norms linking chronic pain to stereotypes of acting disingenuously (e.g., "drug-seeking"). Finally, during and after tapers, institutional policies and programs further increased participants' feelings of marginalization, producing multiple unintended consequences, including reduced access to medical care and feeling "orphaned by the system."ConclusionsOpioid tapers may exacerbate the social production and burden of stigma among patients with chronic pain, especially when processes are perceived to invalidate pain, endorse stereotypes, and label previously effective, acceptable treatment as inappropriate. Findings highlight how various tapering initiatives reinforce the devalued status of people living with chronic pain while also reducing patients' wellbeing and confidence in medical systems.

Purpose: Despite being one of the most common medical complaints, chronic pain is difficult to manage due to ineffective communication between providers and patients and time restraints during appointments. Patient-centered questionnaires have the potential to optimize communication by assessing a patient's pain history, prior treatments, and associated comorbidities to develop an effective treatment plan. This study aimed to analyze the feasibility and acceptability of a pre-visit clinical questionnaire aimed at improving communication and pain care. Patients and Methods: The "Pain Profile" questionnaire was piloted across two specialty pain clinics in a large academic medical center. Patient and provider surveys were conducted with patients who completed the Pain Profile questionnaire and providers who use it in practice. Surveys consisted of multiple-choice and open-ended questions regarding the helpfulness, usability, and implementation of the questionnaire. Descriptive analyses of patient and provider surveys were conducted. Qualitative data were analyzed using matrix framework-based coding. Results: A total of 171 patients and 32 clinical providers completed the feasibility and acceptability surveys. 77% of patients (N= 131) found the Pain Profile helpful in communicating their pain experiences and 69% of providers (N= 22) found it helpful in guiding clinical decisions. The section that assessed the impact of pain was rated most helpful by patients (4/5) while the open-ended section asking patients to describe their pain history was rated least helpful by patients and providers (3.7/5 and 4.1/5, respectively). Both patients and providers provided suggestions to future iterations of the Pain Profile, including the addition of opioid risk and mental health screening tools. Conclusion: The Pain Profile questionnaire was feasible and acceptable in a pilot study at a large academic site. Future testing in a large-scale, fully powered trial is needed to assess the effectiveness of the Pain Profile in optimizing communication and pain management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective Most studies on preoperative opioid use only describe whether or not patients use opioids without characterizing reasons for use. Knowing why patients use opioids can help inform perioperative opioid management. The objective of this study was to explore pain specific reasons for preoperative opioid use prior to total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA and TKA) and their association with persistent use. Methods This is a prospective study of 197 patients undergoing THA (n = 99) or TKA (n = 98) enrolled in the Analgesic Outcomes Study between December 2015 and November 2018. All participants reported preoperative opioid use. Results Reasons for preoperative opioid use were categorized as surgical site pain only (81 [41.1%]); pain in other body areas only (22 [11.2%]); and combined pain (94 [47.7%]). Compared to patients taking opioids for surgical site pain, those with combined reasons for use had 1.24 (P  = .40) and 2.28 (P  = .16) greater odds of persistent use at 3 and 6 months postoperatively, adjusting for relevant covariates. Conclusions This study provides novel insights into the heterogeneity of reasons for presurgical opioid use in patients undergoing a THA or TKA. One key take away is that not all preoperative opioid use is the same and many patients are taking opioids preoperatively for more than just pain at the surgical site. Combined reasons for use was associated with long-term use, suggesting nonsurgical pain, in part, drives persistent opioid use after surgery. Future directions in perioperative care should focus on pain and non-pain reasons for presurgical opioid use to create tailored postoperative opioid weaning plans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Patients on long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) for pain have difficulty accessing primary care clinicians who are willing to prescribe opioids or provide multimodal pain treatment. Recent treatment guidelines and statewide policies aimed at reducing inappropriate prescribing may exacerbate these access issues, but further research is needed on this issue. This study aimed to understand barriers to primary care access and multimodal treatment for chronic pain from the perspective of multiple stakeholders. Methods: Qualitative, semi-structured phone interviews were conducted with adult patients with chronic pain, primary care clinicians, and clinic office staff in Michigan. Interview questions covered stakeholder experiences with prescription opioids, opioid-related policies, and access to care for chronic pain. Interviews were coded using inductive and deductive methods for thematic analysis. Results: A total of 25 interviews were conducted (15 patients, 7 primary care clinicians, and 3 office staff). Barriers to treatment access were attributed to six themes: (1) reduced clinic willingness to manage prescribed opioids for new patients; (2) lack of time and reimbursement for quality opioid-related care; (3) paucity of multimodal care and coordination between providers; (4) fear of liability and use of new guidelines to justify not prescribing opioids; (5) delayed prescription receipt due to prior authorization and pharmacy issues; and (6) poor availability of effective non-opioid treatments. Conclusion: Issues of policy, logistics, and clinic-level resources converge to disrupt treatment access for patients with chronic pain, as many clinics both do not offer multimodal pain care and are unwilling to prescribe LTOT. The resulting conceptual model can inform the development of policy interventions to help mitigate these access barriers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As more patients with chronic pain are transitioned off opioids by their PCPs and PCPs are increasingly unwilling to accept new patients on LTOT,[3] these access barriers and a 9-day wait time could lead to unintended harms such as worsened pain, withdrawal symptoms, or transition to non-prescribed opioids. An estimated 50 million Americans experience chronic pain.[1] To address the complex biopsychosocial aspects of chronic pain and minimize the risks associated with opioid therapy, governmental agencies recommend "timely, early consultation with pain specialists" and a coordinated multimodal approach to pain management.[2] Effective multimodal care includes medications, restorative therapies, procedures (e.g., joint injections), and behavioral therapy.[2] However, there are concerns that patients with chronic pain, and particularly those receiving opioid therapy, may not have sufficient access to pain specialists, or to the full range of recommended treatments.[2] This research sought to quantify access to pain management services for patients receiving opioid therapy for chronic pain. [Extracted from the article]

Objectives. To examine national trends in the use of various pharmacological pain medication classes by race/ethnicity among the US pain population. Methods. We used data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey to conduct a nationally representative, serial cross-sectional study of the noninstitutionalized US adult population from 2000 to 2015. We identified adults with moderate or severe self-reported pain and excluded individuals with cancer.We used complex survey design to provide national estimates of the percentage of adults with noncancer pain who received prescription pain medications among 4 groups: non-Hispanic White, non- Hispanic Black, Hispanic or Latino, and other. Results.The age- and gender-adjusted percentage of prescription opioid use increased across all groups, with the greatest increase among non-Hispanic White individuals. By 2015, the percentage of non-Hispanic Black adults using opioids approximated that of non-Hispanic White adults—in 2015, approximately 23% of adults in these 2 groups used opioids. Conclusions. To our knowledge, this is the first evidence of a narrowing divide in opioid prescribing by race. However, in the context of the national epidemic of opioid-related addiction and mortality, opioid-related risks do not appear commensurate with the purported benefits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors reflects on the practices and risks of opioid tapering when treating pain in patients. Topics include the opioid-related overdose death, the use of opioid in treating patients with chronic backpain and hip or knee osteoarthritis, the adverse effects of opioid like high risks of suicidal ideation and completed suicide, and a study on whether opioid tapering is linked to adverse outcomes.

Background: Policy evaluations and health system interventions often utilize International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes of opioid use, dependence, and abuse to identify individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) and assess receipt of evidence-based treatments. However, ICD codes may not map directly onto the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder (DSM-5) OUD criteria. This study investigates the positive predictive value of ICD codes in identifying patients with OUD.Methods: We conducted a clinical chart review on a national sample of 520 Veterans assigned ICD-9 or ICD-10 codes for opioid use, dependence, or abuse from 2012 to 2017. We extracted evidence of DSM-5 OUD criteria and opioid misuse from clinical documentation in the month preceding and three months following initial ICD code listing, and categorized patients into: 1) high likelihood of OUD, 2) limited aberrant opioid use, 3) prescribed opioid use without evidence of aberrant use, and 4) insufficient information. Positive predictive value was calculated as the percentage of individuals with these ICD codes meeting high likelihood of OUD criteria upon chart review.Results: Only 57.7 % of patients were categorized as high likelihood of OUD; 16.5 % were categorized as limited aberrant opioid use, 18.9 % prescribed opioid use without evidence of aberrant use, and 6.9 % insufficient information.Conclusions: Patients assigned ICD codes for opioid use, dependence, or abuse often lack documentation of meeting OUD criteria. Many receive long-term opioid therapy for chronic pain without evidence of misuse. Robust methods of identifying individuals with OUD are crucial to improving access to clinically appropriate treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's 2016 Guidelinefor Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain aimed to reduce unsafe opioid prescribing. It is unknown whether the guideline influenced prescribing in the target population: patients with chronic, noncancer pain, who may be at particular risk for opioid-related harms. To study this question, we used 2014--18 data from a commercial claims database to examine associations between the release of the guideline and opioid dispensing in a national cohort of more than 450,000 patients with four common chronic pain diagnoses. We also examined whether any reductions associated with the guideline were larger for diagnoses for which there existed stronger expert consensus against opioid prescribing. Overall, the guideline was associated with substantial reductions in dispensing opioids, including a reduction in patients' rate of receiving at least one opioid prescription by approximately 20 percentage points by December 2018 compared with the counterfactual, no-guideline scenario. However, the reductions in dispensing did not vary by the strength of expert consensus against opioid prescribing. These findings suggest that although voluntary guidelines can drive changes in prescribing, questions remain about how clinicians are tailoring opioid reductions to best benefit patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]