OBJECTIVE: To examine the predictors of persistent opioid use (\'persistence\') in people initiating opioids for non-cancer pain in Australian primary care.
METHODS: A retrospective cohort study.
METHODS: Australian primary care.
METHODS: People prescribed opioid analgesics between 2018-2022, identified through the Population Level Analysis and Reporting (POLAR) database.
METHODS: Persistence was defined as receiving opioid prescriptions for at least 90 days with a gap of less than 60 days between subsequent prescriptions. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the predictors of persistent opioid use.
RESULTS: The sample consisted of 343,023 people initiating opioids for non-cancer pain; of these, 16,527 (4.8%) developed persistent opioid use. Predictors of persistence included older age (≥75 vs 15-44 years: Adjusted odds ratio: 1.67, 95% CI: 1.58-1.78), concessional beneficiary status (1.78, 1.71-1.86), diagnosis of substance use disorder (1.44, 1.22-1.71) and chronic pain (2.05, 1.85-2.27), initiation of opioid therapy with buprenorphine (1.95, 1.73-2.20) and long-acting opioids (2.07, 1.90-2.25), provision of higher quantity of opioids prescribed at initiation (total OME of ≥ 750mg vs < 100mg: 7.75, 6.89-8.72), provision of repeat/refill opioid prescriptions at initiation (2.94, 2.77-3.12), and prescription of gabapentinoids (1.59, 1.50-1.68), benzodiazepines (1.43, 1.38-1.50) and z-drugs (e.g., zopiclone, zolpidem; 1.61, 1.46-1.78).
CONCLUSIONS: These findings add to the limited evidence of individual-level factors associated with persistent opioid use. Further research is needed to understand the clinical outcomes of persistent opioid use in people with these risk factors to support the safe and effective prescribing of opioids.

This study examined the factors associated with a high risk of opioid misuse among patients receiving opioid treatment for their non-cancer pain in Malaysian pain clinics. The Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain-Revised (SOAPP-R), a validated instrument for predicting the risk of aberrant drug-related behaviors, were used as a proxy to indicate risk of opioid misuse. Data analysis was stratified into high-risk and low-risk patient groups. Patient factors assessed included pain intensity, pain interference with daily activities, and health-related quality of life. Prescription opioid exposure was examined via patient medical and prescription records review. Among the 61 patients recruited, 62.3% scored ≥18 on the SOAPP-R, which indicates a high risk for opioid misuse. Factors associated with a high risk of opioid misuse were found to be high level of pain interference with daily activities, poorer mental health, and younger age. High-risk patients were found to be prescribed a lower mean daily opioid dose of <20 mg/day compared to low-risk patients (20-49 mg/day). This highlights the need for further research to distinguish aberrant drug-related behaviors due to inadequate pain management from that of actual prescription opioid misuse among non-cancer pain patients attending pain clinics.

UNASSIGNED: This study delves into the two-year opioid prescription trends in the Local Sanitary Agency Naples 3 South, Campania Region, Italy. The research aims to elucidate prescribing patterns, demographics, and dosage categories within a population representing 1.7% of the national total. Perspectives on artificial intelligence research are discussed.
UNASSIGNED: From the original dataset, spanning from January 2022 to October 2023, we processed multiple variables including demographic data, medications, dosages, drug consumption, and administration routes. The dispensing quantity was calculated as defined daily doses (DDD).
UNASSIGNED: The analysis reveals a conservative approach to opioid therapy. In subjects under the age of 20, prescriptions accounted for 2.1% in 2022 and declined to 1.4% in 2023. The drug combination paracetamol/codeine was the most frequently prescribed, followed by tapentadol. Approximately two-thirds of the consumption pertains to oral formulations. Transdermal formulations were 15% (fentanyl 9.8%, buprenorphine 5.1%) in 2022; and 16.6% (fentanyl 10%, buprenorphine 6.6%) in 2023. These data were confirmed by the DDD analysis. The trend analysis demonstrated a significant reduction ( p < 0.001) in the number of prescribed opioids from 2022 to 2023 in adults (40-69 years). The study of rapid-onset opioids (ROOs), drugs specifically used for breakthrough cancer pain, showed higher dosage (>267 mcg) consumption among women, whereas a lower dosage (<133 mcg) was calculated for men. Fentanyl pectin nasal spray accounted for approximately one-fifth of all ROOs.
UNASSIGNED: Despite limitations, the study provides valuable insights into prescribing practices involving an important study population. The findings underscore the need for tailored approaches to prescribing practices, recognizing the complexities of pain management in different contexts. This research can contribute to the ongoing discourse on opioid use, advocating for innovative strategies that optimize therapeutic outcomes while mitigating potential risks.

暂无摘要。

UNASSIGNED: Arkansas lacks adequate access to high-quality pain care, as evidenced, in part, by it having the second highest opioid prescribing rate in the United States. To improve access to high-quality treatment of chronic pain, we developed the Arkansas Improving Multidisciplinary Pain Care and Treatment (AR-IMPACT) Telemedicine Clinic, a multidisciplinary and interprofessional team of specialists who provide evidence-based pain management for patients with chronic pain.
UNASSIGNED: We conducted a single-arm pilot trial of the AR-IMPACT Telemedicine Clinic with rural, university-affiliated primary care clinics. We assessed the AR-IMPACT Telemedicine Clinic using an implementation framework and preliminary effectiveness measures. Specifically, we assessed 5 of the 8 implementation outcomes of the framework (ie, penetration, adoption, acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility) using a mixed methods approach. To evaluate implementation outcomes, we used surveys, interviews, and administrative data. We used electronic health record data to measure preliminary effectiveness (ie, changes in average morphine milligram equivalents per day and pain and depression scores).
UNASSIGNED: The AR-IMPACT team saw 23 patients that were referred by 13 primary care physicians from three rural, university-affiliated primary care clinics over one year. Of the 19 patients willing to participate in the pilot study, 12 identified as women, 31.6% identified as Black, and over 50% had less than a bachelor\'s level education. Patients rated the clinic positively with high overall satisfaction. Referring physicians indicated high levels of appropriateness, acceptability, and feasibility of the program. AR-IMPACT team members identified several barriers and facilitators to the feasibility of implementing the program. No changes in preliminary effectiveness measures were statistically significant.
UNASSIGNED: Overall, the AR-IMPACT Telemedicine Clinic obtained moderate penetration and adoption, was highly acceptable to patients, was highly acceptable and appropriate to providers, and was moderately feasible to providers and AR-IMPACT team members.

Introduction: Europe has seen a steady increase in the use of prescription opioids, especially in non-cancer indications. Epidemiological data on the patterns of use of opioids is required to optimize prescription. We aim to describe the patterns of opioid therapy initiation for non-cancer pain and characteristics of patients treated in a region with five million inhabitants in the period 2012 to 2018. Methods: Population-based retrospective cohort study of all adult patients initiating opioid therapy for non-cancer pain in the region of Valencia. We described patient characteristics at baseline and the characteristics of baseline and subsequent treatment initiation. We used multinominal regression models to identify individual factors associated with initiation. Results: A total of 957,080 patients initiated 1,509,488 opioid treatments (957,080 baseline initiations, 552,408 subsequent initiations). For baseline initiations, 738,749 were with tramadol (77.19%), 157,098 with codeine (16.41%) 58,436 (6.11%) with long-acting opioids, 1,518 (0.16%) with short-acting opioids and 1,279 (0.13%) with ultrafast drugs. When compared to tramadol, patients initiating with short-acting, long-acting and ultrafast opioids were more likely to be older and had more comorbidities, whereas initiators with codeine were more prone to be healthier and younger. Treatments lasting less than 7 days accounted for 41.82% of initiations, and 11.89% lasted more than 30 days. 19.55% of initiators with ultrafast fentanyl received more than 120 daily Morphine Milligram Equivalents (MME), and 16.12% of patients initiating with long-acting opioids were prescribed more than 90 daily MME (p < 0.001). Musculoskeletal indications accounted for 65.05% of opioid use. Overlap with benzodiazepines was observed in 24.73% of initiations, overlap with gabapentinoids was present in 11.04% of initiations with long-acting opioids and 28.39% of initiators with short-acting opioids used antipsychotics concomitantly. In subsequent initiations, 55.48% of treatments included three or more prescriptions (vs. 17.60% in baseline initiations) and risk of overlap was also increased. Conclusion: Opioids are initiated for a vast array of non-oncological indications, and, despite clinical guidelines, short-acting opioids are used marginally, and a significant number of patients is exposed to potentially high-risk patterns of initiation, such as treatments lasting more than 14 days, treatments surpassing 50 daily MMEs, initiating with long-acting opioids, or hazardous overlapping with other therapies.

暂无摘要。

Limited studies suggest that opioid-related adverse effects (ORAEs) may worsen hospitalized patient outcomes, but there is insufficient data related to the impact of high-dose opioids compared to low-dose on adverse patient events. Given the paucity of data, our study aims to evaluate these ORAEs in the general hospitalized patient with non-cancer pain. A retrospective study of adult patients receiving opioids with a primary diagnoses of myocardial infarction, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart failure, pneumonia, sepsis, or diabetes was conducted. Average oral morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) administered over the entire LOS was collected, and patients were categorized as high-dose (≥50 MMEs/day) or low-dose (<50 MMEs/day). The primary composite endpoint was the incidence of ORAEs (naloxone use, decreased oxygen saturations, nausea/vomiting). Secondary outcomes included LOS, 30-day readmission, ORAEs with >100 MMEs/day. A total of 100 patients were included (n = 58 low-dose group; n = 42 high-dose group). For the primary outcome, more patients in the high-dose group experienced ORAEs (50% high-dose vs. 22.4% low-dose; p < 0.006). No statistically significant differences in LOS or 30-day readmission rates were identified between the groups. For patients receiving >100 MMEs/day, ORAEs occurred in 61% of patients. Hospitalized patients receiving high-dose opioids for non-cancer pain may have an increased incidence of ORAEs.

UNASSIGNED: To examine differences in healthcare utilisation and costs associated with opioid prescriptions for non-cancer pain issued in primary care.
UNASSIGNED: A longitudinal, case-control study retrospectively examined Welsh healthcare data for the period 1 January 2005-31 December 2015. Data were extracted from the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) databank. Subjects, aged 18 years and over, were included if their primary care record contained at least one of six overarching pain diagnoses during the study period. Subjects were excluded if their record also contained a cancer diagnosis in that time or the year prior to the study period. Case subjects also received at least one prescription for an opioid analgesic. Controls were matched by gender, age, pain-diagnosis and socioeconomic deprivation. Healthcare use included primary care visits, emergency department (ED) and outpatient (OPD) attendances, inpatient (IP) admissions and length of stay. Cost analysis for healthcare utilisation used nationally derived unit costs for 2015. Differences between case and control subjects for resource use and costs were analysed and further stratified by gender, prescribing persistence (PP) and deprivation.
UNASSIGNED: Data from 3,286,215 individuals were examined with 657,243 receiving opioids. Case subjects averaged 5 times more primary care visits, 2.8 times more OPD attendances, 3 times more ED visits and twice as many IN admissions as controls. Prescription persistence over 6 months and greater deprivation were associated with significantly greater utilisation of healthcare resources. Opioid prescribing was associated with 69% greater average healthcare costs than in control subjects. National Health Service (NHS) healthcare service costs for people with common, pain-associated diagnoses, receiving opioid analgesics were estimated to be £0.9billion per year between 2005 and 2015.
UNASSIGNED: Receipt of opioid prescriptions was associated with significantly greater healthcare utilisation and accompanying costs in all sectors. Extended prescribing durations are particularly important to address and should be considered at the point of initiation.

Opioids have a vital role in alleviating pain from cancer and surgery. Despite good intentions, it is now recognised that the original WHO Cancer Pain Relief guidance from 1986, in which opioids were classified as either weak or strong, has been both inadvertently and purposefully misused, thereby contributing to harm from opioid use and misuse. However, the recommendation in the 2018 update of the WHO analgesic ladder that a combination of a high-potency opioid with simple analgesics is better than alternative analgesics for the maintenance of pain relief is also applicable to patients who require short-term opioids. Furthermore, because potential harm through opioid use and misuse is intrinsic to all opioids, whether weak or strong, we argue that the arbitrary classification of opioids either as weak or strong should be discontinued, as this description is not helpful to either prescribers or consumers.