Responsible, safe, and effective prescription of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain: American society of interventional pain physicians (ASIPP) guidelines

Background: Opioid use, abuse, and adverse consequences, including death, have escalated at an alarming rate since the 1990s. In an attempt to control opioid abuse, numerous regulations and guidelines for responsible opioid prescribing have been developed by various organizations. However, the US opioid epidemic is continuing and drug dose deaths tripled during 1999 to 2015. Recent data show a continuing increase in deaths due to natural and semisynthetic opioids, a decline in methadone deaths, and an explosive increase in the rates of deaths involving other opioids, specifically heroin and illicit synthetic fentanyl. Contrary to scientific evidence of efficacy and negative recommendations, a significant proportion of physicians and patients (92%) believe that opioids reduce pain and a smaller proportion (57%) report better quality of life. In preparation of the current guidelines, we have focused on the means to reduce the abuse and diversion of opioids without jeopardizing access for those patients suffering from non-cancer pain who have an appropriate medical indication for opioid use. Objectives: To provide guidance for the prescription of opioids for the management of chronic non-cancer pain, to develop a consistent philosophy among the many diverse groups with an interest in opioid use as to how appropriately prescribe opioids, to improve the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain and to reduce the likelihood of drug abuse and diversion. These guidelines are intended to provide a systematic and standardized approach to this complex and difficult arena of practice, while recognizing that every clinical situation is unique. Methods: The methodology utilized included the development of objectives and key questions. The methodology also utilized trustworthy standards, appropriate disclosures of conflicts of interest, as well as a panel of experts from various specialties and groups. The literature pertaining to opioid use, abuse, effectiveness, and adverse consequences was reviewed, with a best evidence synthesis of the available literature, and utilized grading for recommendation as described by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)

Rationale for and approach to preoperative opioid weaning: a preoperative optimization protocol

Abstract The practice of chronic opioid prescription for chronic non-cancer pain has come under considerable scrutiny within the past several years as mounting evidence reveals a generally unfavorable risk to benefit ratio and the nation reels from the grim mortality statistics associated with the opioid epidemic. Patients struggling with chronic pain tend to use opioids and also seek out operative intervention for their complaints, which combination may be leading to increased postoperative “acute-on-chronic” pain and fueling worsened chronic pain and opioid dependence. Besides worsened postoperative pain, a growing body of literature, reviewed herein, indicates that preoperative opioid use is associated with significantly worsened surgical outcomes, and severely increased financial drain on an already severely overburdened healthcare budget. Conversely, there is evidence that preoperative opioid reduction may result in substantial improvements in outcome. In the era of accountable care, efforts such as the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol have been introduced in an attempt to standardize and facilitate evidence-based perioperative interventions to optimize surgical outcomes. We propose that addressing preoperative opioid reduction as part of a targeted optimization approach for chronic pain patients seeking surgery is not only logical but mandatory given the stakes involved. Simple opioid reduction/abstinence however is not likely to occur in the absence of provision of viable and palatable alternatives to managing pain, which will require a strong focus upon reducing pain catastrophization and bolstering self-efficacy and resilience. In response to a call from our surgical community toward that end, we have developed a simple and easy-to-implement outpatient preoperative optimization program focusing on gentle opioid weaning/elimination as well as a few other high-yield areas of intervention, requiring a minimum of resources

Comment on “Abuse and Misuse of Pregabalin and Gabapentin: A Systematic Review Update”

Dementia and NAFLD are two frequent conditions that share underlying risk factors mainly in the realm of metabolic disease. Additionally, an association between NAFLD and brain aging has been proposed. Therefore, we investigated the hypothesis if NAFLD is an independent risk factor for emerging dementia. In this population-based cohort study, elderly patients (≥ 65 years) with NAFLD diagnosed between 2000 and 2015 were matched 1:1 to a cohort without NAFLD based on ICD-10 coding in the Disease Analyzer database. Matching criteria were age, sex, physician, index year, and co-diagnoses associated with dementia. The primary outcomes of this study were all-cause dementia diagnoses, the incidence of vascular dementia, and antidementive drug prescription. A total of 22,317 patients with NAFLD were matched to 22,317 patients without NAFLD. Within 10 years of the index date, 16.0% of patients with NAFLD and 15.6% of the patients without NAFLD were diagnosed with dementia. On Cox regression analysis, there is no association between NAFLD and the incidence of all-cause dementia (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.92-1.04), vascular dementia (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78-1.02), or the new prescription of antidementive therapy (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.76-1.01). In sensitivity analyses, there was no association between NAFLD and dementia in different age-groups as well as men or women. In conclusion, in this database study of elderly patients coded with NAFLD no independent association with incident dementia was detected. Risk assessment regarding dementia in patients with NAFLD should be carried out in the same way as for metabolic burdened patients

Ranking the Harm of Psychoactive Drugs Including Prescription Analgesics to Users and Others–A Perspective of German Addiction Medicine Experts

Background: Over the past 15 years, comparative assessments of psychoactive substance harms to both users and others have been compiled by addiction experts. None of these rankings however have included synthetic cannabinoids or non-opioid prescription analgesics (NOAs, e.g., gabapentinoids) despite evidence of increasing recreational use. We present here an updated assessment by German addiction medicine experts, considering changing Western consumption trends-including those of NOAs. Methods: In an initial survey, 101 German addiction medicine physicians evaluated both physical and psychosocial harms (in 5 dimensions) of 33 psychoactive substances including opioids and NOAs, to both users and others. In a second survey, 36 addiction medicine physicians estimated the relative weight of each health and social harm dimension to determine the overall harm rank of an individual substance. We compared our ranking with the most recent European assessment from 2014. Results: Illicit drugs such as methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine and also alcohol were judged particularly harmful, and new psychoactive drugs (cathinones, synthetic cannabinoids) were ranked among the most harmful substances. Cannabis was ranked in the midrange, on par with benzodiazepines and ketamine-somewhat more favorable compared to the last European survey. Prescribed drugs including opioids (in contrast to the USA, Canada, and Australia) were judged less harmful. NOAs were at the bottom end of the ranking. Conclusion: In Germany, alcohol and illicit drugs (including new psychoactive substances) continue to rank among the most harmful addictive substances in contrast to prescribed agents including opioid analgesics and NOAs. Current laws are incongruent with these harm rankings. This study is the first of its kind to include comparative harm rankings of several novel abused substances, both licit/prescribed and illicit

Auditory temporal order discrimination and backward recognition masking in adults with dyslexia

The ability of 20 adult dyslexic readers to extract frequency information from successive tone pairs was compared with that of IQ-matched controls using temporal order discrimination and auditory backward recognition masking (ABRM) tasks. In both paradigms, the interstimulus interval (ISI) between tones in a pair was either short (20 ms) or long (200 ms). Temporal order discrimination was better for both groups of listeners at long than at short ISIs, but no group differences in performance were observed at either ISI. Performance on the ABRM task was also better at long than at short ISIs and was influenced by variability in masker frequency and by the spectral proximity of target and masker. The only significant group difference was found in one condition of the ABRM task when the target-masker interval was 200 ms, but this difference was not reliable when the measure was of optimal performance. Moderate correlations were observed between auditory thresholds and phonological skill for the sample as a whole and within the dyslexic and control groups. However, although a small subgroup of dyslexic listeners with poor phonology was characterized by elevated thresholds across the auditory tasks, evidence for an association between auditory and phonological processing skills was weakened by the finding of a subgroup of control listeners with poor auditory processing and normal phonological processing skills