BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, long-term use of prescription opioids for chronic non-cancer pain has risen globally despite the associated risks. Most opioid users receive their first prescription in primary care.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the perspective of patients who are long-term opioid users in primary care regarding the role of healthcare providers (HCPs) in their prolonged opioid use.
METHODS: Semi-structured interviews in Dutch primary care.
METHODS: We recruited patients who were long-term users of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain from seven community pharmacies in the Netherlands. In-depth, semi-structured interviews focused on patients\' experiences with long-term opioid use, access to opioids, and the guidance of their HCPs (primarily their GPs and pharmacists). A directed content analysis was conducted on the transcribed interviews using NVivo.
RESULTS: Participants (n = 25) described ways in which HCPs impacted their long-term use of opioids. These encompassed the initiation of treatment, chronic use of opioids, and discontinuation of treatment. Participants stressed the need for risk counselling during initial prescribing, ongoing medication evaluations including tapering conversations, and more support from their HCP during a tapering attempt.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients\' perspectives illustrate the important role of HCPs across the spectrum of opioid use - from initiation to tapering. The results of this study underscore the importance of clear risk counselling starting at initial prescribing, repeated medication assessments throughout treatment, addressing tapering at regular intervals, and strong support during tapering. These insights carry significant implications for clinical practice, emphasising the importance of informed and patient-centred care when it comes to opioid use for chronic non-cancer pain management.

OBJECTIVE: To identify common opioid tapering trajectories among patients commencing opioid taper from long-term opioid therapy for chronic non-cancer pain and to examine patient-level characteristics associated with these different trajectories.
METHODS: A retrospective cohort study.
METHODS: Australian primary care.
METHODS: Patients prescribed opioid analgesics between 2015 and 2020.
METHODS: Group-based trajectory modeling and multinomial logistic regression analysis were conducted to determine tapering trajectories and to examine demographic and clinical factors associated with the different trajectories.
RESULTS: A total of 3369 patients commenced a taper from long-term opioid therapy. Six distinct opioid tapering trajectories were identified: low dose / completed taper (12.9%), medium dose / faster taper (12.2%), medium dose / gradual taper (6.5%), low dose / noncompleted taper (21.3%), medium dose / noncompleted taper (30.4%), and high dose / noncompleted taper (16.7%). A completed tapering trajectory from a high opioid dose was not identified. Among patients prescribed medium opioid doses, those who completed their taper were more likely to have higher geographically derived socioeconomic status (relative risk ratio [RRR], 1.067; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.001-1.137) and less likely to have sleep disorders (RRR, 0.661; 95% CI, 0.463-0.945) than were those who didn\'t complete their taper. Patients who didn\'t complete their taper were more likely to be prescribed strong opioids (eg, morphine, oxycodone), regardless of whether they were tapered from low (RRR, 1.444; 95% CI, 1.138-1.831) or high (RRR, 1.344; 95% CI, 1.027-1.760) doses.
CONCLUSIONS: Those prescribed strong opioids and high doses appear to be less likely to complete tapering. Further studies are needed to evaluate the clinical outcomes associated with the identified trajectories.

BACKGROUND: Non-image guided injection treatments (\"nerve blocks\") are commonly provided in community pain clinics in Ontario for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) but remain controversial.
OBJECTIVE: We explored patients\' perspectives of nerve blocks for CNCP.
METHODS: We administered a 33-item cross-sectional survey to patients living with CNCP pain attending four community-based pain clinics in Ontario, Canada. The survey captured demographic information and asked about patient experiences with nerve blocks.
RESULTS: Among 616 patients that were approached, 562 (91%) provided a completed survey. The mean age of respondents was 53 (SD 12), 71% were female, and the majority (57%) reported living with CNCP for more than a decade. Fifty-eight percent had been receiving nerve blocks for their pain for >3 years, 51% on a weekly frequency. Since receiving nerve blocks, patients self-reported a median improvement in pain intensity of 2.5 points (95% CI -2.5 to -3.0) on an 11-point numeric rating scale and 66% reported stopping or reducing prescription medications, including opioids. The majority who were not retired (62%) were receiving disability benefits and were unable to work in any capacity. When asked what impact cessation of nerve blocks would have, most employed patients (52%) reported they would be unable to work, and the majority indicated their ability to function across multiple domains would decrease.
CONCLUSIONS: Our respondents who received nerve blocks for CNCP attribute important pain relief and functional improvement to this intervention. Randomized trials and clinical practice guidelines are urgently needed to optimize the evidence-based use of nerve blocks for CNCP.

Despite opioid prescribing for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) having limited therapeutic benefits, recent evidence indicates significant increases in the prescribing of high-strength opioids for individuals with CNCP. Patients prescribed opioids for CNCP have overdose risk factors but generally have low opioid overdose awareness and low perceptions of risk related to prescribed opioids. Currently, there are few bespoke overdose prevention resources for this group.
This qualitative study investigated views on a naloxone intervention for people prescribed high-strength opioids for CNCP delivered via community pharmacies. The intervention included overdose risk awareness and naloxone training and provision. Interviews were conducted with eight patients, four family members and two community pharmacists. Participants were convenience sampled and recruited through networks within the Scottish pain community. The Framework approach was used to analyse findings.
All participants had positive attitudes towards the intervention, but patients and family members considered risk of overdose to be very low. Three themes were identified: potential advantages of the intervention; potential barriers to the intervention; and additional suggestions and feedback about the intervention. Advantages included the intervention providing essential overdose information for CNCP patients. Barriers included resource and time pressures within community pharmacies.
While patients had low overdose knowledge and did not see themselves as being at risk of opioid overdose, they were receptive to naloxone use and positive about the proposed intervention. A feasibility trial is merited to further investigate how the intervention would be experienced within community pharmacy settings.

(1) Background: It is essential to focus attention on sex-specific factors which are clinically relevant in pain management, especially with regards to opioid use disorder (OUD) risk. The aim of this study was to explore potential sex-differences in chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) outpatients. (2) Methods: An observational cross-sectional study was conducted under CNCP outpatients with long-term prescribed opioids (n = 806), wherein 137 patients had an OUD diagnosis (cases, 64% females) and 669 did not (controls, 66% females). Socio-demographic, clinical, and pharmacological outcomes were analyzed. (3) Results: Female controls presented an older age and less intensive pain therapy but higher psychotropic prescriptions and emergency department visits compared to male controls. Meanwhile, cases demonstrated a younger age, higher work disability, double morphine equivalent daily dose, and benzodiazepine use compared with controls. Here, female cases showed an 8% greater substance use disorder (OR 2.04 [1.11-3.76]) and 24% lower tramadol use, while male cases presented a 22% higher fentanyl use (OR 2.97 [1.52-5.81]) and reported the highest number of adverse drug reactions (24%, OR 2.40 [1.12-5.16]) compared with controls. (4) Conclusions: An OUD individual risk profile was evidenced with sex-differences to take into consideration to design equal prevention programs.

Public health issues related to chronic pain management and the risks of opioid misuse and abuse remain a challenge for practitioners. Data on the prevalence of disorders related to the use of prescribed opioids in patients suffering from chronic pain remains rather patchy, in particular because of the absence of a gold standard for their clinical assessment. We estimated the prevalence of prescription opioid misuse (POM), using a specific and validated opioid misuse scale (POMI-5F scale), in adults with chronic non-cancer pain. Nine-hundred-fifty-one (951) patients with opioids prescription and followed-up in pain clinics and addictology centers for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) completed the survey interview. The results suggest that 44.4% of participants have POM, accompanied by overuse (42.5%), use of opioids for effects other than analgesia (30.9%), withdrawal syndrome (65.7%), and craving (6.9%). The motivations cited for POM, apart from pain relief, were to calm down, relax and improve mood. POM was shown to be related to male sex (OR 1.52), young age (OR 2.21) and the presence of nociplastic pain (OR 1.62) of severe intensity (OR 2.31), codeine use (OR 1.72) and co-prescription of benzodiazepines (OR 1.59). Finally, despite the presence of three subgroups of misusers, no factor was associated with the intensity of misuse, reinforcing the view that distinguishing between strong and weak opioids is not appropriate in the context of use disorder. Almost half of patients with CNCP misuse their prescribed opioid. Practitioners should be attentive of profiles of patients at risk of POM, such as young, male patients suffering from severe nociplastic pain, receiving prescription for codeine and a co-prescription for benzodiazepine. We encourage French-speaking practitioners to use the POMI-5F scale to assess the presence of POM in their patients receiving opioid-based therapy. Clinical Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov, identifier NCT03195374.

Increasing pressures exist to reduce or discontinue opioid use among patients currently on long-term opioid therapy (LTOT). It is essential to understand the potential effects of opioid reduction.
This retrospective cohort study was conducted among veterans with chronic pain and on LTOT. Using 1:1 propensity score-matched samples of veterans switching to intermittent opioid therapy and those continuing LTOT, we examined the development of subsequent substance use disorders (SUD composite; individual SUD types: opioid, non-opioid drug, and alcohol use disorders) and opioid-related adverse outcomes (ORAO composite; individual ORAO types: accidents resulting in wounds/injuries, opioid-related and alcohol/non-opioid medication-related accidents and overdoses, self-inflicted and violence-related injuries). Sensitivity analyses were conducted using logistic regression with stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting (SIPTW) and instrumental variable (IV) models.
A total of 29,293 veterans switching to intermittent therapy were matched to veterans continuing LTOT. With matched samples, no differences were found in composite SUDs and ORAOs between the groups. With SIPTW, veterans switching to intermittent opioid therapy had higher odds of composite SUDs and ORAOs (SUDs aOR=1.12, 95%CI: 1.07,1.17; ORAOs aOR=1.05, 95%CI:1.00,1.09). IV models found lower risks for composite SUDs and ORAOs among veterans switching to intermittent opioid therapy (SUDs: β = -0.38, 95%CI:-0.63,-0.13; ORAOs: β = -0.27, 95%CI:-0.50,-0.04).
There were no consistent associations between transitioning patients from LTOT to intermittent opioid therapy and the risk of SUDs and ORAOs.

Opioids are currently prescribed for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP), and some patients use opioids continuously for long-term treatment. Stakeholders\' awareness about long-term opioid therapy is essential for improving the safety and effectiveness of pain treatment. The purpose of this study is to explore the perspectives of pain specialists, patients, and family caregivers about long-term opioid use in CNCP management.
This study was a qualitative study and adhered to the COREQ guidelines. Pain specialists (n = 12), patients (n = 14), and family members (n = 9) were recruited to the study by purposive sampling at the Pain Clinic of Ramathibodi Hospital. Semi-structured interviews were recorded, verbatim transcribed, conceptually coded, and analyzed using Atlas.ti 8.0.
All groups of participants described opioids as non-first-line drugs for pain management. Opioids should be prescribed only for severe pain, when non-opioid pharmacotherapy and non-pharmacological therapies are not effective. Patients reported that the benefits of opioids were for pain relief, while physicians and most family members highlighted that opioid use should improve functional outcomes. Physicians and family members expressed concerns about opioid-related side effects, harm, and adverse events, while patients did not. Patients confirmed that they would continue using opioids for pain management under supervision. However, physicians stated that they would taper off or discontinue opioid therapy if patients\' pain relief or functional improvement was not achieved. Both patients and family members were willing to consider non-pharmacological therapies if potential benefits existed. Patient education, doctor-patient/family relationships, and opioid prescription policies were proposed to enhance CNCP management.
Long-term opioid therapy for CNCP may be beneficial in patients who have established realistic treatment goals (for both pain relief and functional improvement) with their physicians. Regular monitoring and evaluation of the risks and benefits, adverse events, and drug-related aberrant behaviors are necessary. Integrated multimodal multidisciplinary therapies and family member collaborations are also important for improving CNCP management.

BACKGROUND: Chronic non-cancer pain, which persists for at least three months, seriously affects quality of life. Chronic non-cancer pain patients are usually managed by a multidisciplinary team using pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies. Nurses perform transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and hypnosis, which are widely used in France for the treatment of chronic pain in pain departments.
OBJECTIVE: To assess pain relief at three months, comparing a simultaneous combination of hypnosis and TENS (intervention) with TENS alone (control).
METHODS: Randomized controlled trial.
METHODS: Patients aged 18-80 years, suffering from chronic peripheral neuropathic and/or nociceptive non-cancer pain were included (September 2013 to May 2017) and followed for six months. The primary outcome was the pain intensity difference (by visual analog scale score) between month 3 and baseline. The secondary outcomes, assessed at months 3 and 6, were SF36 score, analgesics consumption and number of TENS sessions performed at home (last seven days).
RESULTS: Seventy-two patients were included, suffering from a combination of chronic non-cancer nociceptive and neuropathic pain, with a mean pain intensity of about sixty out of a hundred. The results show an important pain reduction (forty percent) in both groups at 3 months. No significant difference was observed between the control and intervention groups. Similarly, SF36 score, change in analgesic intake and patient compliance did not differ significantly between groups.
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first randomized controlled study showing a decrease of pain intensity and a high level of compliance with transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation alone or associated to hypnosis. The combination does not seem to be more efficient than transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation alone. Chronic non-cancer pain remains a major issue and a substantial proportion of patients do not appear to benefit from interventions.
CONCLUSIONS: This study increases our understanding of the combination of two non-pharmacological methods in chronic non-cancer pain patients. The combination of the two non-pharmacological strategies did not appear to be more efficient than one alone. Further research on non-pharmacological treatments targeting to patient\'s characteristics are needed to find appropriate strategies in patients with complex multidimensional pain conditions. Clinical Trial Number: NCT01944150 (Sept. 17, 2013).

UNASSIGNED: Evidence for efficacy and safety lacks for long-term opioid therapy in patients with chronic non-cancer pain and adverse effects, including affection of cognitive function and quality of life, is of concern. We aimed to investigate cognitive function and health-related quality of life in patients with chronic non-cancer pain during opioid reduction.
UNASSIGNED: At two multidisciplinary pain centers, all patients with planned opioid reduction were screened for eligibility. Cognitive function was assessed using the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) and Trail Making Test A and B. Health-related quality of life was assessed using Short Form-36 (SF36) and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS).
UNASSIGNED: We included 51 participants and 40 participants attended follow-up of median 254 (IQR 106-357) days. Baseline RBANS score was 82 (IQR 65-93) with reference population norm value of 100 (SD±15). Daily opioid consumption was reduced from median 80 (IQR 45-161) oral morphine milligram equivalents to 19 (IQR 0-60) mg. RBANS score estimate increased by 6.2 (95% CI 3.1-9.3, p=0.0004) points after tapering. No differences were observed for Trail Making Test times, HADS or SF36 scores.
UNASSIGNED: Generally, cognitive function showed minor improvement after opioid tapering with stationary health-related quality of life, depression and anxiety scores. The clinical significance is unclear, as no minimal clinically important difference in RBANS score is available.