Access to care for patients with chronic pain receiving prescription opioids, cannabis, or other treatments
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER:
PROVIDER: S-EPMC11210295 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ImportanceOpioid-prescribing policies and guidelines aimed at reducing inappropriate opioid prescribing may lead physicians to stop prescribing opioids. Patients may thus encounter difficulties finding primary care practitioners willing to care for them if they take opioids.ObjectivesTo assess practitioner willingness to accept and continue prescribing opioids to new patients with pain and whether this willingness differs across payer types.Design, setting, and participantsThis survey study used a simulated patient call audit method. A brief telephone survey was administered to all clinics followed by a call using a patient script simulating an adult patient with chronic pain who was taking long-term opioids. The patient had Medicaid or private insurance. Calls were made between June 22 and October 30, 2018, to 667 primary care clinics that served a general adult population in Michigan. Clinics that accepted both Medicaid and private insurance, took new patient appointments, and were successfully recontacted for the simulated call were eligible for the study.Main outcomes and measuresPrevalence of clinics' acceptance of new patients receiving prescription opioids overall and by clinic characteristics and insurance type.ResultsOf the 194 eligible clinics, 94 (48.4%) were randomized according to insurance type to receive calls from research assistants posing as children of patients with Medicaid and 100 (51.5%) to receive calls from those with private insurance. Overall, 79 (40.7%) stated that their practitioners would not prescribe opioids to the simulated patient. Thirty-three clinics (17.0%) requested more information before making a decision. Compared with single-practitioner clinics, clinics with more than 3 practitioners were more likely (odds ratio [OR], 2.99; 95% CI, 1.48-6.04) to accept new patients currently taking opioids. No difference was found in access based on insurance status (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.52-1.64) or whether the clinic offered medications for opioid use disorders (OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.45-2.69).Conclusions and relevanceThe findings suggest that access to primary care may be reduced for patients taking prescription opioids, which could lead to unintended consequences, such as conversion to illicit substances or reduced management of other medical comorbidities.
| S-EPMC6628590 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceLong-acting opioids increase the risk of unintentional overdose deaths but also may increase mortality from cardiorespiratory and other causes.ObjectiveTo compare all-cause mortality for patients with chronic noncancer pain who were prescribed either long-acting opioids or alternative medications for moderate to severe chronic pain.Design, setting, and participantsRetrospective cohort study between 1999 and 2012 of Tennessee Medicaid patients with chronic noncancer pain and no evidence of palliative or end-of-life care.ExposuresPropensity score-matched new episodes of prescribed therapy for long-acting opioids or either analgesic anticonvulsants or low-dose cyclic antidepressants (control medications).Main outcomes and measuresTotal and cause-specific mortality as determined from death certificates. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and risk differences (difference in incidence of death) were calculated for long-acting opioid therapy vs control medication.ResultsThere were 22,912 new episodes of prescribed therapy for both long-acting opioids and control medications (mean [SD] age, 48 [11] years; 60% women). The long-acting opioid group was followed up for a mean 176 days and had 185 deaths and the control treatment group was followed up for a mean 128 days and had 87 deaths. The HR for total mortality was 1.64 (95% CI, 1.26-2.12) with a risk difference of 68.5 excess deaths (95% CI, 28.2-120.7) per 10,000 person-years. Increased risk was due to out-of-hospital deaths (154 long-acting opioid, 60 control deaths; HR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.40-2.58; risk difference, 67.1; 95% CI, 30.1-117.3) excess deaths per 10,000 person-years. For out-of-hospital deaths other than unintentional overdose (120 long-acting opioid, 53 control deaths), the HR was 1.72 (95% CI, 1.24-2.39) with a risk difference of 47.4 excess deaths (95% CI, 15.7-91.4) per 10,000 person-years. The HR for cardiovascular deaths (79 long-acting opioid, 36 control deaths) was 1.65 (95% CI, 1.10-2.46) with a risk difference of 28.9 excess deaths (95% CI, 4.6-65.3) per 10,000 person-years. The HR during the first 30 days of therapy (53 long-acting opioid, 13 control deaths) was 4.16 (95% CI, 2.27-7.63) with a risk difference of 200 excess deaths (95% CI, 80-420) per 10,000 person-years.Conclusions and relevancePrescription of long-acting opioids for chronic noncancer pain, compared with anticonvulsants or cyclic antidepressants, was associated with a significantly increased risk of all-cause mortality, including deaths from causes other than overdose, with a modest absolute risk difference. These findings should be considered when evaluating harms and benefits of treatment.
| S-EPMC5030814 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo develop consensus recommendations on urine drug monitoring (UDM) in patients with chronic pain who are prescribed opioids.MethodsAn interdisciplinary group of clinicians with expertise in pain, substance use disorders, and primary care conducted virtual meetings to review relevant literature and existing guidelines and share their clinical experience in UDM before reaching consensus recommendations.ResultsDefinitive (e.g., chromatography-based) testing is recommended as most clinically appropriate for UDM because of its accuracy; however, institutional or payer policies may require initial use of presumptive testing (i.e., immunoassay). The rational choice of substances to analyze for UDM involves considerations that are specific to each patient and related to illicit drug availability. Appropriate opioid risk stratification is based on patient history (especially psychiatric conditions or history of opioid or substance use disorder), prescription drug monitoring program data, results from validated risk assessment tools, and previous UDM. Urine drug monitoring is suggested to be performed at baseline for most patients prescribed opioids for chronic pain and at least annually for those at low risk, two or more times per year for those at moderate risk, and three or more times per year for those at high risk. Additional UDM should be performed as needed on the basis of clinical judgment.ConclusionsAlthough evidence on the efficacy of UDM in preventing opioid use disorder, overdose, and diversion is limited, UDM is recommended by the panel as part of ongoing comprehensive risk monitoring in patients prescribed opioids for chronic pain.
| S-EPMC6516588 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPeople with mental health disorders (MHD) like depression and anxiety are more likely to experience substance use disorders (SUDs) than those without MHD. This study assesses opioid prescription patterns for acute or chronic pain management in patients receiving medication for depression and/or anxiety.Methods and findingsCross-sectional data trend analysis of 24.5 million adult medical claims was conducted using medical and pharmacy data (2012-2019) for adults aged 21-64 from the IBM Watson MarketScan Medicaid Multi-State Database. Information on sex, age, race, provider type, acute or chronic pain, and prescriptions for opioids and antidepressant and/or antianxiety medication from outpatient encounters were analyzed. For those receiving opioid prescriptions within 14 days of a pain diagnosis, ICD-10-CM codes were used to categorize diagnoses as chronic pain (back pain, neck pain, joint pain, and headache); or acute pain (dental-, ENT-, and orthopedic-related pain). Nearly 8 million adults had at least one prescription for antidepressant or antianxiety medications (MHD), with 2.5 million of those (32%) also diagnosed with an acute or chronic pain condition (pain + MHD). Among the pain + MHD group, 34% (0.85 million) received an opioid prescription within 14 days of diagnosis. Individuals with chronic pain diagnoses received a higher proportion of opioid prescriptions than those with acute pain. Among individuals with pain + MHD, the majority were aged 50-64 (35%), female (72%), and non-Hispanic white (65.1%). Nearly half (48.2%) of the opioid prescriptions given to adults with an MHD were provided by physicians. Compared to other physician types, Health Care Providers (HCPs) in emergency departments were 50% more likely to prescribe an opioid for dental pain to those with an MHD, whereas dentists were only half as likely to prescribe an opioid for dental pain management. Although overall opioid prescriptions for pain management declined from 2012 to 2019, adults with an MHD received opioids for pain management at nearly twice the level as adults without an MHD.ConclusionsAlthough HCPs have reduced opioids for acute or chronic pain to patients at high-risk for SUD, for example, those with MHD, the use of opioids for pain management has remained at consistently higher levels for this SUD high-risk group, suggesting the need to revisit pain management guidelines for those receiving antidepressant or antianxiety drugs.
| S-EPMC10522028 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMedical cannabis (MC) is increasingly used for chronic pain, but it is unclear how it aids in pain management. Previous literature suggests that MC could holistically alter the pain experience instead of only targeting pain intensity. However, this hypothesis has not been previously systematically tested.MethodA retrospective internet survey was used in a sample of Finnish chronic pain patients (40 MC users and 161 opioid users). The patients evaluated statements describing positive and negative phenomenological effects of the medicine. The two groups were propensity score matched to control for possible confounding factors.ResultsExploratory factor analysis revealed three experience factors: Negative Side Effects, Positive Holistic Effects, and Positive Emotional Effects. The MC group (matched n = 39) received higher scores than the opioid group (matched n = 39) in Positive Emotional Effects with large effect size (Rank-Biserial Correlation RBC = .71, p < .001), and in Holistic Positive Effects with medium effect size (RBC = .47, p < .001), with no difference in Negative Side Effects (p = .13). MC and opioids were perceived as equally efficacious in reducing pain intensity. Ratings of individual statements were exploratively examined in a post hoc analysis.ConclusionMC and opioids were perceived to be equally efficacious in reducing pain intensity, but MC additionally positively affected broader pain-related factors such as emotion, functionality, and overall sense of wellbeing. This supports the hypothesis that MC alleviates pain through holistically altering the pain experience.
| S-EPMC10634036 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceIndividuals with chronic pain who use long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) are at risk of opioid use disorder and other harmful outcomes. Rotation to buprenorphine may be considered, but the outcomes of such rotation in this population have not been systematically reviewed.ObjectiveTo synthesize the evidence on rotation to buprenorphine from full μ-opioid receptor agonists among individuals with chronic pain who were receiving LTOT, including the outcomes of precipitated opioid withdrawal, pain intensity, pain interference, treatment success, adverse events or adverse effects, mental health condition, and health care use.Evidence reviewPubMed, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycInfo were searched from inception through November 3, 2020, for peer-reviewed original English-language research that reported the prespecified outcomes of rotation from prescribed long-term opioids to buprenorphine among individuals with chronic pain. Two independent reviewers extracted data as well as assessed risk of bias and study quality according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines. Quality of evidence was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system.FindingsA total of 22 studies were analyzed, of which 5 (22.7%) were randomized clinical trials, 7 (31.8%) were case-control or cohort studies, and 10 (45.5%) were uncontrolled pre-post studies, which involved 1616 unique participants (675 female [41.8%] and 941 male [58.2%] individuals). Six of the 22 studies (27.3%) were primary or secondary analyses of a large randomized clinical trial. Participants had diverse pain and opioid use histories. Rationale for buprenorphine rotation included inadequate analgesia, intolerable adverse effects, risky opioid regimens (eg, high dose and/or sedative coprescriptions), and aberrant opioid use. Most protocols were adapted from protocols for initiating treatment in patients with opioid use disorder and used buccal or sublingual buprenorphine. Very low-quality evidence suggested that buprenorphine rotation was associated with maintained or improved analgesia, with a low risk of precipitating opioid withdrawal. Steady-dose buprenorphine was better tolerated than tapered-dose buprenorphine. Adverse effects were manageable, and severe adverse events were rare. Only 2 studies evaluated mental health outcomes, but none evaluated health care use. Limitations included a high risk of bias in most studies.Conclusions and relevanceIn this systematic review, buprenorphine was associated with reduced chronic pain intensity without precipitating opioid withdrawal in individuals with chronic pain who were receiving LTOT. Future studies are necessary to ascertain the ideal starting dose, formulation, and administration frequency of buprenorphine as well as the best approach to buprenorphine rotation.
| S-EPMC8427372 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCurrent levels and dangers of opioid use in the U.S. warrant the investigation of harm-reducing treatment alternatives.PurposeA preliminary, historical, cohort study was used to examine the association between enrollment in the New Mexico Medical Cannabis Program (MCP) and opioid prescription use.MethodsThirty-seven habitual opioid using, chronic pain patients (mean age = 54 years; 54% male; 86% chronic back pain) enrolled in the MCP between 4/1/2010 and 10/3/2015 were compared to 29 non-enrolled patients (mean age = 60 years; 69% male; 100% chronic back pain). We used Prescription Monitoring Program opioid records over a 21 month period (first three months prior to enrollment for the MCP patients) to measure cessation (defined as the absence of opioid prescriptions activity during the last three months of observation) and reduction (calculated in average daily intravenous [IV] morphine dosages). MCP patient-reported benefits and side effects of using cannabis one year after enrollment were also collected.ResultsBy the end of the 21 month observation period, MCP enrollment was associated with 17.27 higher age- and gender-adjusted odds of ceasing opioid prescriptions (CI 1.89 to 157.36, p = 0.012), 5.12 higher odds of reducing daily prescription opioid dosages (CI 1.56 to 16.88, p = 0.007), and a 47 percentage point reduction in daily opioid dosages relative to a mean change of positive 10.4 percentage points in the comparison group (CI -90.68 to -3.59, p = 0.034). The monthly trend in opioid prescriptions over time was negative among MCP patients (-0.64mg IV morphine, CI -1.10 to -0.18, p = 0.008), but not statistically different from zero in the comparison group (0.18mg IV morphine, CI -0.02 to 0.39, p = 0.081). Survey responses indicated improvements in pain reduction, quality of life, social life, activity levels, and concentration, and few side effects from using cannabis one year after enrollment in the MCP (ps<0.001).ConclusionsThe clinically and statistically significant evidence of an association between MCP enrollment and opioid prescription cessation and reductions and improved quality of life warrants further investigations on cannabis as a potential alternative to prescription opioids for treating chronic pain.
| S-EPMC5690609 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Opioids, such as morphine and oxycodone, are widely used for pain management associated with chronic pancreatitis (CP); however, their impact on the progression and pain sensitivity of CP has never been evaluated. This report investigates the impact of opioid use on the severity of CP, pain sensitivity, and the gut microbiome. C57BL/6 mice were divided into control, CP, CP with morphine/oxycodone, and either morphine or oxycodone alone groups. CP was induced by administration of caerulein (50ug/kg/h, i.p. hourly x7, twice a week for 10 weeks). The mouse-to-pancreas weight ratio, histology, and Sirius red staining were performed to measure CP severity. Tail flick and paw pressure assays were used to measure thermal and mechanical pain. DNA was extracted from the fecal samples and subjected to whole-genome shotgun sequencing. Germ-free mice were used to validate the role of gut microbiome in sensitizing acute pancreatic inflammation. Opioid treatment exacerbates CP by increasing pancreatic necrosis, fibrosis, and immune-cell infiltration. Opioid-treated CP mice exhibited enhanced pain hypersensitivity and showed distinct clustering of the gut microbiome compared to untreated CP mice, with severely compromised gut barrier integrity. Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) from opioid-treated CP mice into germ-free mice resulted in pancreatic inflammation in response to a suboptimal caerulein dose. Together, these analyses revealed that opioids worsen the severity of CP and induce significant alterations in pain sensitivity and the gut microbiome in a caerulein CP mouse model. Microbial dysbiosis plays an important role in sensitizing the host to pancreatic inflammation.
| S-EPMC10857465 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Aims: With increased liberalization of cannabis policies in North America, there is growing interest in the use of cannabis to manage pain instead of opioids. The objectives of the study were to (1) examine the use of cannabis for pain relief in Canada and the United States (US) in 2018 and 2019; (2) examine the association between recreational cannabis laws and changes in the use of cannabis for pain relief, instead of opioids or prescription pain medication. Methods: Repeat cross-sectional survey data were used from Wave 1 and Wave 2 of the International Cannabis Policy Study conducted in 2018 and 2019 in Canada and the US. Respondents were recruited through commercial panels, aged 16-65, and had ever tried cannabis (N = 44,119). Weighted binary logistic regression models examined the association between the legal status of recreational cannabis and cannabis use for pain relief instead of opioids or prescription pain medication (n = 15,092). Results: Between 14-33% of cannabis consumers in Canada and the US reported using cannabis to manage headaches or pain. Of these consumers, 79% and 78% respondents in Canada; 80% and 83% in US illegal states; and 83% and 84% in US legal states, in 2018 and 2019, respectively, reported cannabis use for pain relief instead of opioids or prescription pain medication. There was little evidence of an association between the legal status of recreational cannabis and cannabis use for pain relief instead of opioids or prescription pain medication, among Canadian (AOR = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.78, 1.22) and US respondents (AOR = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.96, 1.28). Conclusions: Although substitution of cannabis for opioids or prescription pain medication is common among those who use cannabis for pain, there does not seem to be a significant difference according to cannabis legality. Future research should examine cannabis and opioid substitution using different research designs and time frames.
| S-EPMC7614954 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9857553 | biostudies-literature