Analgesics

Adolescent Opioid Misuse Attributable to Adverse Childhood Experiences

Author/s: 
Swedo, E.A., Sumner, S.A., Fijter, S., Werhan, L., Norris, K., Beauregard, J.L., Montgomery, M.P., Rose, E.B., Hillis, S. D., Massetti, G.M.

Objectives

To estimate the proportion of opioid misuse attributable to adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) among adolescents.

Study design

A cross-sectional survey was administered to 10,546 7th‒12th grade students in northeastern Ohio in Spring 2018. Study measures included self-reported lifetime exposure to 10 ACEs and past 30 day use of nonmedical prescription opioid or heroin. Using generalized estimating equations, we evaluated associations between recent opioid misuse, individual ACEs, and cumulative number of ACEs. We calculated population attributable fractions (PAF) to determine the proportion of adolescents’ recent opioid misuse attributable to ACEs.

Results

Nearly one in 50 adolescents reported opioid misuse within 30 days (1.9%); ∼60% of youth experienced ≥1 ACE; 10.2% experienced ≥5 ACEs. Cumulative ACE exposure demonstrated a significant graded relationship with opioid misuse. Compared with youth with zero ACEs, youth with 1 ACE (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 1.9, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.9‒3.9), 2 ACEs (AOR: 3.8, CI: 1.9‒7.9), 3 ACEs (AOR: 3.7, CI: 2.2‒6.5), 4 ACEs (AOR: 5.8, CI: 3.1‒11.2), and ≥5 ACEs (AOR: 15.3, CI: 8.8‒26.6) had higher odds of recent opioid misuse. The population attributable fraction of recent opioid misuse associated with experiencing ≥1 ACE was 71.6% (CI: 59.8–83.5).

Conclusions

There was a significant graded relationship between number of ACEs and recent opioid misuse among adolescents. Over 70% of recent adolescent opioid misuse in our study population was attributable to ACEs. Efforts to decrease opioid misuse could include programmatic, policy, and clinical practice interventions to prevent and mitigate the negative effects of ACEs.

Therapeutic use of cannabis and cannabinoids: an evidence mapping and appraisal of systematic reviews

Author/s: 
Montero-Oleas, N, Arevalo-Rodriguez, I, Nunez-Gonzalez, S, Viteri-Garcia, A, Simancas-Racines, D

Background

Although cannabis and cannabinoids are widely used with therapeutic purposes, their claimed efficacy is highly controversial. For this reason, medical cannabis use is a broad field of research that is rapidly expanding. Our objectives are to identify, characterize, appraise, and organize the current available evidence surrounding therapeutic use of cannabis and cannabinoids, using evidence maps.

Methods

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and CINAHL, to identify systematic reviews (SRs) published from their inception up to December 2017. Two authors assessed eligibility and extracted data independently. We assessed methodological quality of the included SRs using the AMSTAR tool. To illustrate the extent of use of medical cannabis, we organized the results according to identified PICO questions using bubble plots corresponding to different clinical scenarios.

Results

A total of 44 SRs published between 2001 and 2017 were included in this evidence mapping with data from 158 individual studies. We extracted 96 PICO questions in the following medical conditions: multiple sclerosis, movement disorders (e.g. Tourette Syndrome, Parkinson Disease), psychiatry conditions, Alzheimer disease, epilepsy, acute and chronic pain, cancer, neuropathic pain, symptoms related to cancer (e.g. emesis and anorexia related with chemotherapy), rheumatic disorders, HIV-related symptoms, glaucoma, and COPD. The evidence about these conditions is heterogeneous regarding the conclusions and the quality of the individual primary studies. The quality of the SRs was moderate to high according to AMSTAR scores.

Conclusions

Evidence on medical uses of cannabis is broad. However, due to methodological limitations, conclusions were weak in most of the assessed comparisons. Evidence mapping methodology is useful to perform an overview of available research, since it is possible to systematically describe the extent and distribution of evidence, and to organize scattered data.

Building a Group-Based Opioid Treatment (GBOT) blueprint: a qualitative study delineating GBOT implementation

Author/s: 
Sokol, R, Albanese, M, Chew, A, Early, J, Grossman, E, Roll, D, Sawin, G, Wu, DJ, Schuman-Olivier, Z

BACKGROUND:

Group-Based Opioid Treatment (GBOT) has recently emerged as a mechanism for treating patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) in the outpatient setting. However, the more practical "how to" components of successfully delivering GBOT has received little attention in the medical literature, potentially limiting its widespread implementation and utilization. Building on a previous case series, this paper delineates the key components to implementing GBOT by asking: (a) What are the core components to GBOT implementation, and how are they defined? (b) What are the malleable components to GBOT implementation, and what conceptual framework should providers use in determining how to apply these components for effective delivery in their unique clinical environment?

METHODS:

To create a blueprint delineating GBOT implementation, we integrated findings from a previously conducted and separately published systematic review of existing GBOT studies, conducted additional literature review, reviewed best practice recommendations and policies related to GBOT and organizational frameworks for implementing health systems change. We triangulated this data with a qualitative thematic analysis from 5 individual interviews and 2 focus groups representing leaders from 5 different GBOT programs across our institution to identify the key components to GBOT implementation, distinguish "core" and "malleable" components, and provide a conceptual framework for considering various options for implementing the malleable components.

RESULTS:

We identified 6 core components to GBOT implementation that optimize clinical outcomes, comply with mandatory policies and regulations, ensure patient and staff safety, and promote sustainability in delivery. These included consistent group expectations, team-based approach to care, safe and confidential space, billing compliance, regular monitoring, and regular patient participation. We identified 14 malleable components and developed a novel conceptual framework that providers can apply when deciding how to employ each malleable component that considers empirical, theoretical and practical dimensions.

CONCLUSION:

While further research on the effectiveness of GBOT and its individual implementation components is needed, the blueprint outlined here provides an initial framework to help office-based opioid treatment sites implement a successful GBOT approach and hence potentially serve as future study sites to establish efficacy of the model. This blueprint can also be used to continuously monitor how components of GBOT influence treatment outcomes, providing an empirical framework for the ongoing process of refining implementation strategies.

Tapering Long-term Opioid Therapy in Chronic Noncancer Pain: Evidence and Recommendations for Everyday Practice

Author/s: 
Berna, Chantal, Kulich, Ronald J., Rathmell, James P.

Increasing concern about the risks and limited evidence supporting the therapeutic benefit of long-term opioid therapy for chronic noncancer pain are leading prescribers to consider discontinuing the use of opioids. In addition to overt addiction or diversion, the presence of adverse effects, diminishing analgesia, reduced function and quality of life, or the absence of progress toward functional goals can justify an attempt at weaning patients from long-termopioid therapy. However, discontinuing opioid therapy is often hindered by patients' psychiatric comorbidities and poor coping skills, as well as the lack of formal guidelines for the prescribers. The aim of this article is to review the existing literature and formulate recommendations for practitioners aiming to discontinue long-term opioid therapy. Specifically, this review aims to answer the following questions: What is an optimal opioid tapering regimen? How can the risks involved in a taper be managed? What are the alternatives to an opioid taper? A PubMed literature search was conducted using the keywords chronic pain combined with opioidwithdrawal, taper, wean and detoxification. Six hundred ninety-five documents were identified and screened; 117 were deemed directly relevant and are included. On the base of this literature review, this article proposes evidence-based recommendations and expert-based suggestions for clinical practice. Furthermore, areas of lack of evidence are identified, providing opportunities for further research.

Effect of Opioid vs Nonopioid Medications on Pain-Related Function in Patients With Chronic Back Pain or Hip or Knee Osteoarthritis Pain The SPACE Randomized Clinical Trial

Author/s: 
Krebs, Erin E., Gravely, Amy, Nugent, Sean, Jensen, Agnes C., DeRonne, Beth, Goldsmith, Elizabeth S., Kroenke, Kurt, Bair, Matthew J, Noorbaloochi, Siamak

Importance  Limited evidence is available regarding long-term outcomes of opioids compared with nonopioid medications for chronic pain.

Objective  To compare opioid vs nonopioid medications over 12 months on pain-related function, pain intensity, and adverse effects.

Design, Setting, and Participants  Pragmatic, 12-month, randomized trial with masked outcome assessment. Patients were recruited from Veterans Affairs primary care clinics from June 2013 through December 2015; follow-up was completed December 2016. Eligible patients had moderate to severe chronic back pain or hip or knee osteoarthritis pain despite analgesic use. Of 265 patients enrolled, 25 withdrew prior to randomization and 240 were randomized.

Interventions  Both interventions (opioid and nonopioid medication therapy) followed a treat-to-target strategy aiming for improved pain and function. Each intervention had its own prescribing strategy that included multiple medication options in 3 steps. In the opioid group, the first step was immediate-release morphine, oxycodone, or hydrocodone/acetaminophen. For the nonopioid group, the first step was acetaminophen (paracetamol) or a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug. Medications were changed, added, or adjusted within the assigned treatment group according to individual patient response.

Main Outcomes and Measures  The primary outcome was pain-related function (Brief Pain Inventory [BPI] interference scale) over 12 months and the main secondary outcome was pain intensity (BPI severity scale). For both BPI scales (range, 0-10; higher scores = worse function or pain intensity), a 1-point improvement was clinically important. The primary adverse outcome was medication-related symptoms (patient-reported checklist; range, 0-19).

Results  Among 240 randomized patients (mean age, 58.3 years; women, 32 [13.0%]), 234 (97.5%) completed the trial. Groups did not significantly differ on pain-related function over 12 months (overall P = .58); mean 12-month BPI interference was 3.4 for the opioid group and 3.3 for the nonopioid group (difference, 0.1 [95% CI, −0.5 to 0.7]). Pain intensity was significantly better in the nonopioid group over 12 months (overall P = .03); mean 12-month BPI severity was 4.0 for the opioid group and 3.5 for the nonopioid group (difference, 0.5 [95% CI, 0.0 to 1.0]). Adverse medication-related symptoms were significantly more common in the opioid group over 12 months (overall P = .03); mean medication-related symptoms at 12 months were 1.8 in the opioid group and 0.9 in the nonopioid group (difference, 0.9 [95% CI, 0.3 to 1.5]).

Conclusions and Relevance  Treatment with opioids was not superior to treatment with nonopioid medications for improving pain-related function over 12 months. Results do not support initiation of opioid therapy for moderate to severe chronic back pain or hip or knee osteoarthritis pain.

Trial Registration  clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01583985

Subscribe to Analgesics