The epidemiology of regular opioid use and its association with mortality: Prospective cohort study of 466 486 UK biobank participants.

BACKGROUND: Opioids have, at most, small benefits for non-cancer pain in the medium and long-term but there is good evidence that they cause harm. The current study describes the characteristics and clinical status of people taking regular opioids in Great Britain and determines whether use is associated with mortality risk. METHODS: An analysis of participants in UK Biobank, a prospective population-based study. At recruitment (2006-10) participants reported medicines which they regularly used in addition to lifestyle and health-related factors. Information was available on deaths until October 2016. FINDINGS: There were 466 486 participants (54% women) aged 40-69 years and without a prior history of cancer of whom 5.5% were regularly using opioids. Use increased with age-group, was more common in females (6.3% v. 4.6%) and 87% of persons using them reported chronic pain. The highest rates of use (~1 in 9) were in people with low household income, who left school <16 years and lived in areas with high deprivation. Amongst 15,032 people who could not work because of ill-health, 1 in 3 were regularly taking opioids. Regular users reported insomnia (88.7%), a recent major recent life event (57.3%) and were much more likely than non-users to rate their health as poor (RR 5.5, 99% CI (4.9, 6.1)). Those taking weak (4.2% of participants) or strong (1.4%) opioids were more likely to die during follow-up (6.9% and 9.1% respectively v. 3.3% in non-users) an excess which remained after adjustment for demographic, socio-economic, health and lifestyle factors (MRR 1.18 99% CI (1.06, 1.32) and 1.20 99% CI (1.01, 1.43)) respectively. INTERPRETATION: Regular use of opioids is common in Great Britain, particularly in groups of low socio-economic status. Most users still report chronic pain, poor health generally and are at increased risk of premature death although it is not established that this relationship is causal. FUNDING: There were no external sources of funding obtained for the current analyses.

Interventions for the reduction of prescribed opioid use in chronic non-cancer pain.

BACKGROUND: This is the first update of the original Cochrane Review published in 2013. The conclusions of this review have not changed from the 2013 publication. People with chronic non-cancer pain who are prescribed and are taking opioids can have a history of long-term, high-dose opioid use without effective pain relief. In those without good pain relief, reduction of prescribed opioid dose may be the desired and shared goal of both patient and clinician. Simple, unsupervised reduction of opioid use is clinically challenging, and very difficult to achieve and maintain. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effectiveness of different methods designed to achieve reduction or cessation of prescribed opioid use for the management of chronic non-cancer pain in adults compared to controls. SEARCH METHODS: For this update we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase in January 2017, as well as bibliographies and citation searches of included studies. We also searched one trial registry for ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Included studies had to be randomised controlled trials comparing opioid users receiving an intervention with a control group receiving treatment as usual, active control, or placebo. The aim of the study had to include a treatment goal of dose reduction or cessation of opioid medication. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We sought data relating to prescribed opioid use, adverse events of opioid reduction, pain, and psychological and physical function. We planned to assess the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach, however, due to the heterogeneity of studies, we were unable to combine outcomes in a meta-analysis and therefore we did not assess the evidence with GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: Three studies are new to this update, resulting in five included studies in total (278 participants). Participants were primarily women (mean age 49.63 years, SD = 11.74) with different chronic pain conditions. We judged the studies too heterogeneous to pool data in a meta-analysis, so we have summarised the results from each study qualitatively. The studies included acupuncture, mindfulness, and cognitive behavioral therapy interventions aimed at reducing opioid consumption, misuse of opioids, or maintenance of chronic pain management treatments. We found mixed results from the studies. Three of the five studies reported opioid consumption at post-treatment and follow-up. Two studies that delivered 'Mindfulness-Oriented Recovery Enhancement' or 'Therapeutic Interactive Voice Response' found a significant difference between groups at post-treatment and follow-up in opioid consumption. The remaining study found reduction in opioid consumption in both treatment and control groups, and between-group differences were not significant. Three studies reported adverse events related to the study and two studies did not have study-related adverse events. We also found mixed findings for pain intensity and physical functioning. The interventions did not show between-group differences for psychological functioning across all studies. Overall, the risk of bias was mixed across studies. All studies included sample sizes of fewer than 100 and so we judged all studies as high risk of bias for that category. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence for the efficacy or safety of methods for reducing prescribed opioid use in chronic pain. There is a small number of randomised controlled trials investigating opioid reduction, which means our conclusions are limited regarding the benefit of psychological, pharmacological, or other types of interventions for people with chronic pain trying to reduce their opioid consumption. The findings to date are mixed: there were reductions in opioid consumption after intervention, and often in control groups too.

Fentanyl for neuropathic pain in adults.

BACKGROUND: Opioid drugs, including fentanyl, are commonly used to treat neuropathic pain, and are considered effective by some professionals. Most reviews have examined all opioids together. This review sought evidence specifically for fentanyl, at any dose, and by any route of administration. Other opioids are considered in separate reviews. OBJECTIVES: To assess the analgesic efficacy of fentanyl for chronic neuropathic pain in adults, and the adverse events associated with its use in clinical trials. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase from inception to June 2016, together with the reference lists of retrieved articles, and two online study registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised, double-blind studies of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing fentanyl (in any dose, administered by any route, and in any formulation) with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality and potential bias. We did not carry out any pooled analyses. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: Only one study met our inclusion criteria. Participants were men and women (mean age 67 years), with postherpetic neuralgia, complex regional pain syndrome, or chronic postoperative pain. They were experiencing inadequate relief from non-opioid analgesics, and had not previously taken opioids for their neuropathic pain. The study used an enriched enrolment randomised withdrawal design. It was adequately blinded, but we judged it at unclear risk of bias for other criteria.Transdermal fentanyl (one-day fentanyl patch) was titrated over 10 to 29 days to establish the maximum tolerated and effective dose (12.5 to 50 µg/h). Participants who achieved a prespecified good level of pain relief with a stable dose of fentanyl, without excessive use of rescue medication or intolerable adverse events ('responders'), were randomised to continue with fentanyl or switch to placebo for 12 weeks, under double-blind conditions. Our prespecified primary outcomes were not appropriate for this study design, but the measures reported do give an indication of the efficacy of fentanyl in this condition.In the titration phase, 1 in 3 participants withdrew because of adverse events or inadequate pain relief, and almost 90% experienced adverse events. Of 258 participants who underwent open-label titration, 163 were 'responders' and entered the randomised withdrawal phase. The number of participants completing the study (and therefore continuing on treatment) without an increase of pain by more than 15/100 was 47/84 (56%) with fentanyl and 28/79 (35%) with placebo. Because only 63% responded sufficiently to enter the randomised withdrawal phase, this implies that only a maximum of 35% of participants entering the study would have had useful pain relief and tolerability with transdermal fentanyl, compared with 22% with placebo. Almost 60% of participants taking fentanyl were 'satisfied' and 'very satisfied' with their treatment at the end of the study, compared with about 40% with placebo. This outcome approximates to our primary outcome of moderate benefit using the Patient Global Impression of Change scale, but the group was enriched for responders and the method of analysis was not clear. The most common adverse events were constipation, nausea, somnolence, and dizziness.There was no information about other types of neuropathic pain, other routes of administration, or comparisons with other treatments.We downgraded the quality of the evidence to very low because there was only one study, with few participants and events, and there was no information about how data from people who withdrew were analysed. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the suggestion that fentanyl works in any neuropathic pain condition.

Oxycodone for pain in fibromyalgia in adults.

BACKGROUND: This review replaces part of an earlier review that evaluated oxycodone for both neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia, which has now been split into separate reviews for the two conditions. This review will consider pain in fibromyalgia only.Opioid drugs are commonly used to treat fibromyalgia, but they may not be beneficial for people with this condition. Most reviews have examined all opioids together. This review sought evidence specifically for oxycodone, at any dose, and by any route of administration. OBJECTIVES: To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of oxycodone for treating pain in fibromyalgia in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE for randomised controlled trials from inception to 25 July 2016. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and searched online clinical trial registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include randomised, double-blind trials of eight weeks' duration or longer, comparing oxycodone (alone or in fixed-dose combination with naloxone) with placebo or another active treatment. We did not include observational studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The plan was for two independent review authors to extract data and assess trial quality and potential bias. Where pooled analysis was possible, we planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and numbers needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods. MAIN RESULTS: No study satisfied the inclusion criteria. Effects of interventions were not assessed as there were no included studies. We have only very low quality evidence and are very uncertain about estimates of benefit and harm. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no randomised trial evidence to support or refute the suggestion that oxycodone, alone or in combination with naloxone, reduces pain in fibromyalgia.

Oxycodone for neuropathic pain in adults.

BACKGROUND: This is an update of an earlier review that considered both neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia (Issue 6, 2014), which has now been split into separate reviews for the two conditions. This review considers neuropathic pain only.Opioid drugs, including oxycodone, are commonly used to treat neuropathic pain, and are considered effective by some professionals. Most reviews have examined all opioids together. This review sought evidence specifically for oxycodone, at any dose, and by any route of administration. Separate reviews consider other opioids. OBJECTIVES: To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of oxycodone for chronic neuropathic pain in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE from inception to 6 November 2013 for the original review and from January 2013 to 21 December 2015 for this update. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and two online clinical trial registries. This update differs from the earlier review in that we have included studies using oxycodone in combination with naloxone, and oxycodone used as add-on treatment to stable, but inadequate, treatment with another class of drug. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised, double-blind studies of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing any dose or formulation of oxycodone with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality and potential bias. Where pooled analysis was possible, we used dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and numbers needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods.We assessed the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and created a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS: The updated searches identified one additional published study, and one clinical trial registry report. We included five studies reporting on 687 participants; 637 had painful diabetic neuropathy and 50 had postherpetic neuralgia. Two studies used a cross-over design and three used a parallel group design; all studies used a placebo comparator, although one study used an active placebo (benztropine). Modified-release oxycodone (oxycodone MR) was titrated to effect and tolerability. One study used a fixed dose combination of oxycodone MR and naloxone. Two studies added oxycodone therapy to ongoing, stable treatment with either pregabalin or gabapentin. All studies had one or more sources of potential major bias.No study reported the proportion of participants experiencing 'substantial benefit' (at least 50% pain relief or who were very much improved). Three studies (537 participants) in painful diabetic neuropathy reported outcomes equivalent to 'moderate benefit' (at least 30% pain relief or who were much or very much improved), which was experienced by 44% of participants with oxycodone and 27% with placebo (number needed to treat for one additional beneficial outcome (NNT) 5.7).All studies reported group mean pain scores at the end of treatment. Three studies reported a greater pain intensity reduction and better patient satisfaction with oxycodone MR alone than with placebo. There was a similar result in the study adding oxycodone MR to stable, ongoing gabapentin, but adding oxycodone MR plus naloxone to stable, ongoing pregabalin did not show any additional effect.More participants experienced adverse events with oxycodone MR alone (86%) than with placebo (63%); the number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNH) was 4.3. Serious adverse events (oxycodone 3.4%, placebo 7.0%) and adverse event withdrawals (oxycodone 11%, placebo 6.4%) were not significantly different between groups. Withdrawals due to lack of efficacy were less frequent with oxycodone MR (1.1%) than placebo (11%), with a number needed to treat to prevent one withdrawal of 10. The add-on studies reported similar results.We downgraded the quality of the evidence to very low for all outcomes, due to limitations in the study methods, heterogeneity in the pain condition and study methods, and sparse data. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was only very low quality evidence that oxycodone (as oxycodone MR) is of value in the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy or postherpetic neuralgia. There was no evidence for other neuropathic pain conditions. Adverse events typical of opioids appeared to be common.

Hydromorphone for neuropathic pain in adults.

BACKGROUND: Opioid drugs, including hydromorphone, are commonly used to treat neuropathic pain, and are considered effective by some professionals. Most reviews have examined all opioids together. This review sought evidence specifically for hydromorphone, at any dose, and by any route of administration. Other opioids are considered in separate reviews.This review is part of an update of a previous review, Hydromorphone for acute and chronic pain that was withdrawn in 2013 because it needed updating and splitting to be more specific for different pain conditions. This review focuses only on neuropathic pain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the analgesic efficacy of hydromorphone for chronic neuropathic pain in adults, and the adverse events associated with its use in clinical trials. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), via the CRSO; MEDLINE via Ovid; and EMBASE via Ovid from inception to 17 November 2015, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, and two online study registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised, double-blind studies of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing hydromorphone (at any dose, by any route of administration, or in any formulation) with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality. We did not carry out any pooled analyses. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). MAIN RESULTS: Searches identified seven publications relating to four studies. We excluded three studies. One post hoc (secondary) analysis of a study published in four reports assessed the efficacy of hydromorphone in neuropathic pain, satisfied our inclusion criteria, and was included in the review. The single included study had an enriched enrolment, randomised withdrawal design with 94 participants who were successfully switched from oral morphine to oral hydromorphone extended release (about 60% of those enrolled). These participants were then randomised to continuing hydromorphone for 12 weeks or tapering down the hydromorphone dose to placebo. The methodological quality of the study was generally good, but we judged the risk of bias for incomplete outcome data as unclear, and for study size as high.Since we identified only one study for inclusion, we were unable to carry out any analyses. The included study did not report any of our prespecified primary outcomes, which relate to the number of participants achieving moderate or substantial levels of pain relief. It did report a slightly larger increase in average pain intensity for placebo in the randomised withdrawal phase than for continuing with hydromorphone. It also reported the number of participants who withdrew due to lack of efficacy in the randomised withdrawal phase, which may be an indicator of efficacy. However, in addition to using an enriched enrolment, randomised withdrawal study design, there was an unusual choice of imputation methods for withdrawals (about 50% of participants); the evidence was of very low quality and inadequate to make a judgement on efficacy. Adverse events occurred in about half of participants with hydromorphone, the most common being constipation and nausea. A similar proportion of participants experienced adverse events with placebo, the most common being opioid withdrawal syndrome (very low quality evidence). Most adverse events were mild or moderate in intensity. One in eight participants withdrew while taking hydromorphone during the conversion and titration phase, despite participants being opioid-tolerant (very low quality evidence).We downgraded the quality of the evidence to very low because there was only one study with few participants, it did not report clinically useful efficacy outcomes, and it was a post hoc analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was insufficient evidence to support or refute the suggestion that hydromorphone has any efficacy in any neuropathic pain condition.

Opioids and chronic pain: using what we know to change what we do.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The review draws together firm conclusions about effectiveness and harms of prolonged opioid treatment and explores the complex nature of chronic pain. RECENT FINDINGS: The literature may now explain why long-term opioid treatment has failed to live up to its late 20th century promise. An understanding of sources of bias in clinical trials has allowed a more detailed and accurate picture of the role of opioids in chronic pain to emerge and there is recognition that populations in clinical trials differ in very important ways to those given opioids in clinical practice. The prevalence of psychiatric and emotional comorbidities in patients with long-term pain is identified in clinical populations and the influence of these on the experience of pain and the outcomes of therapy are well described. This improved understanding of the role of opioids and the complexity of the pain experience should allow more appropriate assessment of patients and better focused treatment planning, but the influences on prescriber behaviour are many and varied and change in prescribing practice may be difficult to achieve. SUMMARY: Clinicians treating patients with chronic pain need to understand the many contributors to the reported experience of pain. A shared understanding of this complexity helps to set prescriber and patient expectations appropriately. If medications are used as part of the treatment plan they should only be prescribed if they produce useful pain relief and meaningful improvements in quality of life.

Buprenorphine for neuropathic pain in adults.

BACKGROUND: Opioid drugs, including buprenorphine, are commonly used to treat neuropathic pain, and are considered effective by some professionals. Most reviews have examined all opioids together. This review sought evidence specifically for buprenorphine, at any dose, and by any route of administration. Other opioids are considered in separate reviews. OBJECTIVES: To assess the analgesic efficacy of buprenorphine for chronic neuropathic pain in adults, and the adverse events associated with its use in clinical trials. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE from inception to 11 June 2015, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, and two online study registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised, double-blind studies of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing any oral dose or formulation of buprenorphine with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality. We did not carry out any pooled analyses. MAIN RESULTS: Searches identified 10 published studies, and one study with results in ClinicalTrials.gov. None of these 11 studies satisfied our inclusion criteria, and so we included no studies in the review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was insufficient evidence to support or refute the suggestion that buprenorphine has any efficacy in any neuropathic pain condition.

Prescription opioid misuse in the United States and the United Kingdom: cautionary lessons.

In the United States, opioid analgesics have increasingly been prescribed in the treatment of chronic pain, and this trend has accompanied increasing rates of misuse and overdose. Lawmakers have responded with myriad policies to curb the growing epidemic of opioid misuse, and a global alarm has been sounded among countries wishing to avoid this path. In the United Kingdom, a similar trend of increasing opioid consumption, albeit at lower levels, has been observed without an increase in reported misuse or drug-related deaths. The comparison between these two countries in opioid prescribing and opioid overdose mortality underscores important features of prescribing, culture, and health systems that may be permissive or protective in the development of a public health crisis. As access to opioid medications increases around the world, it becomes vitally important to understand the forces impacting opioid use and misuse. Trends in benzodiazepine and methadone use in the UK as well as structural elements of the National Health Service may serve to buffer opioid-related harms in the face of increasing prescriptions. In addition, the availability and price of heroin, as well as the ease of access to opioid agonist treatment in the UK may limit the growth of the illicit market for prescription opioids. The comparison between the US and the UK in opioid consumption and overdose rates should serve as a call to action for UK physicians and policymakers. Basic, proactive steps in the form of surveillance - of overdoses, marketing practices, prescribers, and patients - and education programs may help avert a public health crisis as opioid prescriptions increase.

Oxycodone for neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia in adults.

BACKGROUND: This review is one of a series on drugs used to treat neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia. These conditions are estimated to affect 3 to 10% of adults, and are difficult to treat. Although they probably have different aetiologies, neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia can respond to the same therapies. There have been substantial changes in the standards of evidence considered necessary for assessment of interventions to treat chronic pain, to provide data that are more robust and clinically relevant. Oxycodone is a strong opioid agonist widely used to manage severe pain; this review assesses evidence for oxycodone using current standards of evidence designed to reduce bias. OBJECTIVES: To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of oxycodone for chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia. SEARCH METHODS: On 6 November 2013, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. We reviewed the bibliographies of all included studies and of reviews, and also searched two clinical trial databases, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organisation (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, to identify additional published or unpublished data. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with double-blind assessment of participant outcomes following two weeks of treatment or longer (although the emphasis of the review was on studies of eight weeks or longer) that used a placebo or active comparator. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted efficacy and adverse event data, examined issues of study quality, and assessed risk of bias. We performed analysis using three tiers of evidence. First tier evidence was derived from data meeting current best standards and subject to minimal risk of bias (outcome equivalent to substantial pain intensity reduction, intention-to-treat analysis without imputation for dropouts; at least 200 participants in the comparison, eight to 12 weeks duration, parallel design), second tier from data that failed to meet one or more of these criteria and were considered at some risk of bias but with adequate numbers in the comparison, and third tier from data involving small numbers of participants that was considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both. MAIN RESULTS: We included three studies with 254 participants; 204 had painful diabetic neuropathy and 50 postherpetic neuralgia. Study size ranged from 45 to 159 participants. Two studies used a cross-over design and one a parallel group design; study duration was four or six weeks. Controlled release oxycodone (oxycodone CR) was used in all three studies, with doses titrated up to a maximum of between 60 and 120 mg daily; mean doses achieved ranged between 37 and 45 mg daily. All studies used a placebo comparator, although in one study, an active placebo (benztropine) was used. All studies had one or more sources of potential major bias.No study reported the proportion of participants experiencing at least 50% pain relief or who were very much improved, while one reported the proportion with at least 30% pain relief, two reported at least moderate pain relief, and one reported the number of participants who considered treatment to be moderately effective. No study provided first or second tier evidence for an efficacy outcome. Third tier evidence indicated greater pain intensity reduction and better patient satisfaction with oxycodone than with placebo in all three studies, but such evidence was derived mainly from group mean data, with last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation or completer analysis, in small studies lasting less than eight weeks (very low quality evidence).Adverse events were more common with oxycodone CR than with placebo. At least one adverse event was experienced by 86% of participants taking oxycodone CR and 63% taking placebo, and the number needed to treat for an additional harmful effect (NNH) was 4.3. The effect of oxycodone on serious adverse events reported was uncertain in comparison with placebo (oxycodone 3.4% versus placebo: 7.0%; RR 0.48 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 1.23; very low quality evidence); one death was reported with oxycodone CR, but was not attributed to treatment. Adverse event withdrawals did not differ significantly between groups, occurring in 11% of participants with oxycodone CR and 6.4% with placebo (RR 1.69 (0.83 to 3.43); very low quality evidence). Withdrawals due to lack of efficacy were less frequent with oxycodone CR (1.1%) than placebo (11%), with an NNT to prevent one withdrawal of 10 (RR 0.12 (0.03 to 0.45); very low quality evidence).We found no relevant studies in chronic neuropathic pain conditions other than painful diabetic neuropathy or postherpetic neuralgia, or in fibromyalgia. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No convincing, unbiased evidence suggests that oxycodone (as oxycodone CR) is of value in treating people with painful diabetic neuropathy or postherpetic neuralgia. There is no evidence at all for other neuropathic pain conditions, or for fibromyalgia. Adverse events typical of opioids appear to be common.

Interventions for the reduction of prescribed opioid use in chronic non-cancer pain.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic non-cancer pain who are prescribed and are taking opioids can have a history of long term high dose opioid use without effective pain relief. In those without good pain relief, reduction of prescribed opioid dose may be the desired and shared goal of both patient and clinician. Simple unsupervised reduction of opioid use is clinically challenging, and very difficult to achieve and maintain. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effectiveness of different methods designed to achieve reduction or cessation of prescribed opioid use for the management of chronic non-cancer pain. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE from inception to 8th April 2013, as well as bibliographies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Included studies had to be randomised controlled trials comparing opioid users receiving an intervention with a control group receiving treatment as usual, active control, or placebo. The aim of the study had to include a treatment goal of dose reduction or cessation of opioid medication. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We sought data relating to prescribed opioid use, adverse events of opioid reduction, pain, and psychological and physical function. MAIN RESULTS: Two studies provided information on 86 participants. One compared electroacupuncture with sham acupuncture for 20 minutes twice a week for six weeks; there was no difference between treatments. The other followed 11 weeks of cognitive behavioural therapy with either therapeutic interactive voice response through a computer for four months or usual treatment; the active group had a significant reduction in opioid use, while the usual care group had a significant increase. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Both included studies were at significant risk of bias because of their small size, together with other important issues, including blinding. Because of this risk and the paucity of relevant studies, no conclusions can be drawn regarding the effectiveness of interventions for opioid withdrawal in chronic non-cancer pain.

Chlamydia screening practices among physicians and community nurses in Yukon, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Yukon, a territory in northern Canada, has one of the highest reported sexually transmitted chlamydia infection rates in the country. OBJECTIVE: We examined screening practices among physicians and community nurses to elucidate factors that may be contributing to the high rates. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. METHODS: A questionnaire was distributed to all physicians in Yukon and all community nurses in Yukon's communities. We surveyed sexual health assessment frequency, chlamydia testing frequency and barriers to screening. Comparison of physician testing practices was performed to another Canadian jurisdiction, which previously undertook a similar survey. Survey results were compared to the available laboratory data in Yukon. RESULTS: Eligible physicians and nurses, 79% and 77%, respectively, participated in the survey. Physicians tested 15 to 24-year-old females more frequently than 15 to 24-year-old males for chlamydia (p = 0.007). Physicians who asked sexual health assessment questions were more likely to test for chlamydia in both females (p < 0.001) and males (p = 0.032). More physicians screened females based on risk factors compared to males. General practice physicians in Yukon were more likely to test females for chlamydia than general practice physicians in Toronto, Canada (p < 0.001). Community nurses had different testing patterns than physicians, with a lower overall frequency of testing, equal frequency of testing males and females, and in applying risk factor-based screening to both males and females. Barriers to screening included testing causing patient discomfort, patients reluctant to discuss screening, health provider uncomfortable conducting sexually transmitted infection tests and sexual health assessments, among others. Laboratory data in Yukon appear to confirm provider screening patterns. CONCLUSIONS: This survey provides valuable information on health provider screening patterns. We have some evidence which suggests that chlamydia testing rates may be higher among patients seen by physicians in Yukon in comparison to another Canadian jurisdiction. However, more consistent application of optimal screening methods with support to "start the conversation" around sexual health may assist in overcoming barriers to screening and in addressing Yukon's high rate of chlamydia.