Opioids: how to improve compliance and adherence.

Chronic pain has been recognized as a major worldwide health care problem. Today, medical experts and health agencies agree that chronic pain should be treated with the same priority as the disease that caused it, and patients should receive adequate pain relief. To achieve good analgesia, patient adherence to a prescribed pain treatment is of high importance. Patients with chronic pain often do not use their medication as prescribed, but change the frequency of intake. This can result in poor treatment outcomes and may necessitate additional emergency treatment, which increases the overall costs. Factors that influence adherence include knowledge of the disease, realistic treatment expectations, perceived benefit from treatment, side effects, depression, dosing frequency, and attitudes of relatives/significant others toward opioids. Addressing all these factors should ensure a good treatment outcome. Good adherence to pain therapy is associated with improved efficacy in pain relief and quality of life. Opioids have become an integral part of the treatment of moderate to severe chronic noncancer pain. They may cause unpleasant side effects such as nausea, vomiting, and constipation. Patients should be informed adequately about side effects, which should be treated pro-actively to foster adherence to treatment. Signs of tolerance, hyperalgesia, and drug abuse should be monitored as these may occur in some patients. An individualized treatment algorithm with a clear treatment goal and regular treatment reassessment is key for successful treatment. Long-acting opioids offer sustained pain relief over 24 hours with manageable side effects-they simplify treatment thereby supporting treatment adherence.

Validating PRISM (Pictorial Representation of Illness and Self Measure) as a measure of suffering in chronic non-cancer pain patients.

UNLABELLED: The Pictorial Representation of Illness and Self Measure (PRISM) is a recently developed tool designed to measure the burden of suffering due to illness in a variety of patient populations. The purpose of the current study was to validate PRISM as a measure of suffering in patients with chronic non-cancer pain. Patients (n = 138) were recruited from 2 hospital pain clinics, where they were participating in a 10-week, mindfulness-based chronic pain management course and during which they completed validated questionnaires to assess their outcomes. Convergent validity was assessed by correlating their PRISM scores with scores on the Short-Form 36v2 quality of life instrument, the Pain Catastrophizing Scale, and the 0 to 10 Numeric Pain Scale. Content validity and test-retest reliability were assessed, and a factor analysis performed to identify relationships among the PRISM domains. PRISM was found to have good reliability and was significantly correlated with many of the subdomains of the other questionnaires. Qualitative data (n = 26) revealed that PRISM was well understood and that there was consistency in interpreting the task. Our data suggest that the PRISM task measures constructs relating to quality of life, pain catastrophizing, and pain intensity and probably measures suffering in patients with chronic non-cancer pain, providing a novel and quick tool for clinicians. PERSPECTIVE: This study demonstrates the reliability and validity of the PRISM task for measuring the burden of pain in a population of chronic pain sufferers. Clinicians in the field of chronic pain management may find PRISM useful for monitoring the impact of pain management strategies on pain perception and the psychosocial variables that influence suffering.

Evaluating distance education of a mindfulness-based meditation programme for chronic pain management.

Patients with chronic pain were recruited from two large urban hospitals and from rural hospitals in Ontario. Patients on the waiting list served as controls. The intervention was a Mindfulness-Based Chronic Pain Management course, delivered to patients for two hours per week for 10 weeks. Pre- and postcourse measures of quality of life, pain catastrophizing and usual pain ratings were collected over a period of two years. Patients received the course via traditional face-to-face, in-person teaching (Present site group) or via videoconferencing at their local hospital site (Distant site group). In all, there were 99 Present site participants, 57 at Distant sites and 59 waitlist controls. Patients at Present and Distant sites achieved similar gains in mental health (P < 0.01) and pain catastrophizing levels (P < 0.01) relative to controls. However, the Present site group obtained significantly higher scores on the physical dimension of quality of life (P < 0.01) and lower usual-pain ratings (P < 0.05) than the Distant site group. The results suggest that videoconferencing is an effective mode of delivery for the Mindfulness course and may represent a new way of helping chronic pain patients in rural areas manage their suffering.

A randomized, double-blind, 8-week crossover study of once-daily controlled-release tramadol versus immediate-release tramadol taken as needed for chronic noncancer pain.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of controlled-release (CR) tramadol and immediate-release (IR) tramadol in patients with moderate or greater intensity chronic noncancer pain. METHODS: A total of 122 patients underwent washout from all opioids 2 to 7 days before randomization to 1 of 2 groups: active CR tramadol 200 mg every morning plus placebo IR tramadol 50 mg every 4 to 6 hours PRN rescue, or placebo CR tramadol 200 mg every morning plus active IR tramadol 50 mg every 4 to 6 hours PRN rescue. After 2 weeks, the doses were increased to CR tramadol 400 mg or placebo and IR tramadol 100 mg every 4 to 6 hours PRN or placebo, as rescue. After 4 weeks in the first phase, patients crossed over to the alternative treatment for another 4 weeks. Pain intensity (100-mm visual analog scale [VAS] and 5-point ordinal scales) was assessed twice daily in diaries. Pain intensity, Pain and Disability Index (PDI; 0-10 ordinal scale), Pain and Sleep Questionnaire (100-mm VAS), and analgesic effectiveness (7-point ordinal scale) were assessed at biweekly clinic visits. RESULTS: Sixty-five patients (35 men, 30 women) completed the study. Mean (SD) age was 56.5 (12.7) years; mean (SD) weight was 82.0 (18.5) kg. Daily diary pain intensity (mean [SD]) was significantly lower in the CR tramadol group than in the IR tramadol group in the last 2 weeks of each phase (completers: VAS, 29.9 [20.5] vs 36.2 [20.4] mm, P < 0.001; ordinal scale, 1.41 [0.7] vs 1.64 [0.6], P < 0.001; intent-to-treat [ITT] population: VAS, 32.5 [22.9] vs 38.6 [21.2] mm, P < 0.003; ordinal scale, 1.50 [0.8] vs 1.72 [0.7], P < 0.002). The overall pain intensity scores from the daily diary were also significantly better with CR tramadol for both the completers and ITT. Similar results were obtained on the biweekly VAS pain intensity questionnaire. No differences were found between treatments in total PDI or overall Pain and Sleep scores in either population. For the completers, both patients and investigators rated effectiveness higher for CR tramadol than for IR tramadol (P < 0.004 and P < 0.008 for patients and investigators, respectively). CONCLUSION: This study reports significant improvement in pain intensity with CR tramadol as compared with IR tramadol.