Impact of opioid rescue medication for breakthrough pain on the efficacy and tolerability of long-acting opioids in patients with chronic non-malignant pain

There is little evidence that short-acting opioids as rescue medication for breakthrough pain is an optimal long-term treatment strategy in chronic non-malignant pain. We compared clinical studies of long-acting opioids that allowed short-acting opioid rescue medication with those that did not, to determine the impact of opioid rescue medication use on the analgesic efficacy and tolerability of chronic opioid therapy in patients with chronic non-malignant pain. We searched MEDLINE (1950 to July 2006) and EMBASE (1974 to July 2006) using terms for chronic non-malignant pain and long-acting opioids. Independent review of the search results identified 48 studies that met the study selection criteria. The effect of opioid rescue medication on analgesic efficacy and the incidence of common opioid-related side-effects were analysed using meta-regression. After adjusting for potentially confounding variables (study design and type of opioid), the difference in analgesic efficacy between the 'rescue' and the 'no rescue' studies was not significant, with regression coefficients close to 0 and 95% confidence intervals that excluded an effect of more than 18 points on a 0-100 scale in each case. There was also no significant difference between the 'rescue' and the 'no rescue' studies for the incidence of nausea, constipation, or somnolence in both the unadjusted and the adjusted analyses. We found no evidence that rescue medication with short-acting opioids for breakthrough pain affects analgesic efficacy of long-acting opioids or the incidence of common opioid-related side-effects among chronic non-malignant pain patients

Intention-to-treat analyses for randomised controlled trials in hospice/palliative care: the case for analyses to be of people exposed to the intervention.

© 2019 American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine Context: Minimizing bias in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) includes intention-to-treat analyses. Hospice/palliative care RCTs are constrained by high attrition unpredictable when consenting, including withdrawals between randomization and first exposure to the intervention. Such withdrawals may systematically bias findings away from the new intervention being evaluated if they are considered nonresponders. Objectives: This study aimed to quantify the impact within intention-to-treat principles. Methods: A theoretical model was developed to assess the impact of withdrawals between randomization and first exposure on study power and effect sizes. Ten reported hospice/palliative care studies had power recalculated accounting for such withdrawal. Results: In the theoretical model, when 5% of withdrawals occurred between randomization and first exposure to the intervention, change in power was demonstrated in binary outcomes (2.0%–2.2%), continuous outcomes (0.8%–2.0%), and time-to-event outcomes (1.6%–2.0%), and odds ratios were changed by 0.06–0.17. Greater power loss was observed with larger effect sizes. Withdrawal rates were 0.9%–10% in the 10 reported RCTs, corresponding to power losses of 0.1%–2.2%. For studies with binary outcomes, withdrawal rates were 0.3%–1.2% changing odds ratios by 0.01–0.22. Conclusion: If blinding is maintained and all interventions are available simultaneously, our model suggests that excluding data from withdrawals between randomization and first exposure to the intervention minimizes one bias. This is the safety population as defined by the International Committee on Harmonization. When planning for future trials, minimizing the time between randomization and first exposure to the intervention will minimize the problem. Power should be calculated on people who receive the intervention

A primary care, multi-disciplinary disease management program for opioid-treated patients with chronic non-cancer pain and a high burden of psychiatric comorbidity

BACKGROUND: Chronic non-cancer pain is a common problem that is often accompanied by psychiatric comorbidity and disability. The effectiveness of a multi-disciplinary pain management program was tested in a 3 month before and after trial. METHODS: Providers in an academic general medicine clinic referred patients with chronic non-cancer pain for participation in a program that combined the skills of internists, clinical pharmacists, and a psychiatrist. Patients were either receiving opioids or being considered for opioid therapy. The intervention consisted of structured clinical assessments, monthly follow-up, pain contracts, medication titration, and psychiatric consultation. Pain, mood, and function were assessed at baseline and 3 months using the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), the Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale scale (CESD) and the Pain Disability Index (PDI). Patients were monitored for substance misuse. RESULTS: Eighty-five patients were enrolled. Mean age was 51 years, 60% were male, 78% were Caucasian, and 93% were receiving opioids. Baseline average pain was 6.5 on an 11 point scale. The average CESD score was 24.0, and the mean PDI score was 47.0. Sixty-three patients (73%) completed 3 month follow-up. Fifteen withdrew from the program after identification of substance misuse. Among those completing 3 month follow-up, the average pain score improved to 5.5 (p = 0.003). The mean PDI score improved to 39.3 (p < 0.001). Mean CESD score was reduced to 18.0 (p < 0.001), and the proportion of depressed patients fell from 79% to 54% (p = 0.003). Substance misuse was identified in 27 patients (32%). CONCLUSIONS: A primary care disease management program improved pain, depression, and disability scores over three months in a cohort of opioid-treated patients with chronic non-cancer pain. Substance misuse and depression were common, and many patients who had substance misuse identified left the program when they were no longer prescribed opioids. Effective care of patients with chronic pain should include rigorous assessment and treatment of these comorbid disorders and intensive efforts to insure follow up

Long-Term Opioid Contract Use for Chronic Pain Management in Primary Care Practice. A Five Year Experience

BACKGROUND: The use of opioid medications to manage chronic pain is complex and challenging, especially in primary care settings. Medication contracts are increasingly being used to monitor patient adherence, but little is known about the long-term outcomes of such contracts. OBJECTIVE: To describe the long-term outcomes of a medication contract agreement for patients receiving opioid medications in a primary care setting. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SUBJECTS: All patients placed on a contract for opioid medication between 1998 and 2003 in an academic General Internal Medicine teaching clinic. MEASUREMENTS: Demographics, diagnoses, opiates prescribed, urine drug screens, and reasons for contract cancellation were recorded. The association of physician contract cancellation with patient factors and medication types were examined using the Chi-square test and multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 330 patients constituting 4% of the clinic population were placed on contracts during the study period. Seventy percent were on indigent care programs. The majority had low back pain (38%) or fibromyalgia (23%). Contracts were discontinued in 37%. Only 17% were cancelled for substance abuse and noncompliance. Twenty percent discontinued contract voluntarily. Urine toxicology screens were obtained in 42% of patients of whom 38% were positive for illicit substances. CONCLUSIONS: Over 60% of patients adhered to the contract agreement for opioids with a median follow-up of 22.5 months. Our experience provides insight into establishing a systematic approach to opioid administration and monitoring in primary care practices. A more structured drug testing strategy is needed to identify nonadherent patients

Ensuring competency in end-of-life care: controlling symptoms

BACKGROUND: Palliative medicine is assuming an increasingly important role in patient care. The Education for Physicians in End-of-life Care (EPEC) Project is an ambitious program to increase core palliative care skills for all physicians. It is not intended to transmit specialty level competencies in palliative care. METHOD: The EPEC Curriculum was developed to be a comprehensive syllabus including trainer notes, multiple approaches to teaching the material, slides, and videos of clinical encounters to trigger discussion are provided. The content was developed through a combination of expert opinion, participant feedback and selected literature review. Content development was guided by the goal of teaching core competencies not included in the training of generalist and non-palliative medicine specialist physicians. RESULTS: Whole patient assessment forms the basis for good symptom control. Approaches to the medical management of pain, depression, anxiety, breathlessness (dyspnea), nausea/vomiting, constipation, fatigue/weakness and the symptoms common during the last hours of life are described. CONCLUSION: While some physicians will have specialist palliative care services upon which to call, most in the world will need to provide the initial approaches to symptom control at the end-of-life

Tools for Assessing Neuropathic Pain

Giorgio Cruccu and Andrea Truini discuss a new pain assessment tool published in PLoS Medicine called Standardized Evaluation of Pain and they review other tools to assess neuropathic pain

Predictors of opioid misuse in patients with chronic pain: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND: Opioid misuse can complicate chronic pain management, and the non-medical use of opioids is a growing public health problem. The incidence and risk factors for opioid misuse in patients with chronic pain, however, have not been well characterized. We conducted a prospective cohort study to determine the one-year incidence and predictors of opioid misuse among patients enrolled in a chronic pain disease management program within an academic internal medicine practice. METHODS: One-hundred and ninety-six opioid-treated patients with chronic, non-cancer pain of at least three months duration were monitored for opioid misuse at pre-defined intervals. Opioid misuse was defined as: 1. Negative urine toxicological screen (UTS) for prescribed opioids; 2. UTS positive for opioids or controlled substances not prescribed by our practice; 3. Evidence of procurement of opioids from multiple providers; 4. Diversion of opioids; 5. Prescription forgery; or 6. Stimulants (cocaine or amphetamines) on UTS. RESULTS: The mean patient age was 52 years, 55% were male, and 75% were white. Sixty-two of 196 (32%) patients committed opioid misuse. Detection of cocaine or amphetamines on UTS was the most common form of misuse (40.3% of misusers). In bivariate analysis, misusers were more likely than non-misusers to be younger (48 years vs 54 years, p < 0.001), male (59.6% vs. 38%; p = 0.023), have past alcohol abuse (44% vs 23%; p = 0.004), past cocaine abuse (68% vs 21%; p < 0.001), or have a previous drug or DUI conviction (40% vs 11%; p < 0.001%). In multivariate analyses, age, past cocaine abuse (OR, 4.3), drug or DUI conviction (OR, 2.6), and a past alcohol abuse (OR, 2.6) persisted as predictors of misuse. Race, income, education, depression score, disability score, pain score, and literacy were not associated with misuse. No relationship between pain scores and misuse emerged. CONCLUSION: Opioid misuse occurred frequently in chronic pain patients in a pain management program within an academic primary care practice. Patients with a history of alcohol or cocaine abuse and alcohol or drug related convictions should be carefully evaluated and followed for signs of misuse if opioids are prescribed. Structured monitoring for opioid misuse can potentially ensure the appropriate use of opioids in chronic pain management and mitigate adverse public health effects of diversion

The unrecognised cost of cancer patients' unrelieved symptoms:a nationwide follow-up of their surviving partners

We investigated if a cancer patient's unrelieved symptoms during the last 3 months of life increase the risk of long-term psychological morbidity of the surviving partner. All women (n=506) living in Sweden under 80 years of age, who lost their husband/partner owing to cancer of the prostate in 1996 or of the urinary bladder in 1995 or 1996 were asked to answer an anonymous postal questionnaire, 2–4 years after their loss. The widows' psychological morbidity was associated with the patient's unrelieved mental symptoms. When the patient was perceived to have been very anxious during last three months of life (compared to no observed symptoms) the relative risks for the widows' psychological morbidity were: 2.5 (1.4–4.3) for depression and 3.4 (1.4–8.2) for anxiety. When comparing reports of the patient's pain (much vs no), the relative risks were 0.8 (0.5–1.2) for widowhood depression, and 0.8 (0.4–1.7) for widowhood anxiety. The patients were found to have had adequate access to physical pain control but poor access to psychological symptom control. Efficiency in diagnosing and treating psychological complications of terminally ill cancer patients may not only improve their quality of life but possibly also prevent long-term psychological morbidity of their surviving partners

Opioids Switching with Transdermal Systems in Chronic Cancer Pain

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Due to tolerance development and adverse side effects, chronic pain patients frequently need to be switched to alternative opioid therapy</p> <p>Objective</p> <p>To assess the efficacy and tolerability of an alternative transdermally applied (TDS) opioid in patients with chronic cancer pain receiving insufficient analgesia using their present treatment.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A total of 32 patients received alternative opioid therapy, 16 were switched from buprenorphine to fentanyl and 16 were switched from fentanyl to buprenorphine. The dosage used was 50% of that indicated in equipotency conversion tables. Pain relief was assessed at weekly intervals for the next 3 weeks</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Pain relief as assessed by VAS, PPI, and PRI significantly improved (p < 0.0001) in all patients at all 3 follow up visits. After 3 weeks of treatment, the reduction in the mean VAS, PPI, and PRI scores in the fentanyl and buprenorphine groups was 68, 77, 74, and 69, 79, and 62%, respectively. Over the same time period the use of oral morphine as rescue medication was reduced from 27.5 ± 20.5 (mean ± SD) to 3.75 ± 8.06, and 33.8 ± 18.9 to 3.75 ± 10.9 mg/day in the fentanyl and buprenorphine groups, respectively. There was no significant difference in either pain relief or rescue medication use between the two patient groups The number of patient with adverse events fell during the study. After the third week of the treatment the number of patients with constipation was reduced from 11 to 5, and 10 to 4 patients in the fentanyl and buprenorphine groups, respectively. There was a similar reduction in the incidence of nausea and vomiting. No sedation was seen in any patient after one week of treatment.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Opioid switching at 50% of the calculated equianalgesic dose produced a significant reduction in pain levels and rescue medication. The incidence of side effects decreased and no new side effects were noted. Further studies are required to provide individualized treatment for patients according to their different types of cancer.</p