Improvement of Pain and Function After Use of a Topical Pain Relieving Patch: Results of the RELIEF Study.

PURPOSE: Pain is the most common reason for patients to consult primary care providers. Identification of effective treatments with minimal adverse events is critical to safer opioid-sparing and multi-modal approaches to pain treatment. Topical analgesic patches target medication to peripheral sites of pain while potentially avoiding adverse effects associated with systemic medications. Opioids, prescription nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and over-the-counter oral medications are associated with systemic toxicities, increasing morbidity and mortality. This study evaluated a topical analgesic pain-relieving patch in reducing pain severity and improving function in patients with mild to moderate arthritic, neurological, or musculoskeletal pain. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This Institutional Review Board-approved study evaluated the effectiveness of a topical pain-relieving patch in reducing Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) scores in patients. The treatment group (TG) (n=152) received patches for 14 days. A control group (CG) (n=47) did not receive the patch. After day 14, 34 CG patients crossed over to treatment (CROSSG) with the patch. Surveys were administered to patients at baseline and 14 days to assess changes in pain severity and interference. Changes in oral pain medication use, side effects, and satisfaction use were also assessed. RESULTS: Paired data were collected in the CG, TG and CROSSG. At day 14, TG pain severity score and pain interference score decreased (49% and 58.1%, respectively). Pain severity and interference scores decreased less in the CG (12.3% and 14.8%, respectively). In the study, 60.5% of the TG were using concomitant oral pain medications "a lot less", and 90.8% were very/extremely satisfied with the patch. CROSSG patients showed similar reductions in pain severity and interference scores after patch treatment. No side effects of treatment were reported. CONCLUSION: Results indicate that this topical analgesic pain-relieving patch can reduce BPI pain severity and interference scores in adult patients with mild to moderate arthritic, neurological, and musculoskeletal pain and should be considered as a treatment option.

The prescription opioid conundrum: 21st century solutions to a millennia-long problem.

Health-care professionals are faced with a daunting task: balancing appropriate care for chronic pain with their responsibility to keep patients and others safe from treatment-related harm. Whereas opioids have historically been considered an effective tool in the analgesic armamentarium, the rise of opioid abuse has caused the pendulum to swing away from prescribing opioids to an emphasis on safety. This paradigm shift risks neglecting the very real consequences of untreated/undertreated pain. Using data from the medical literature, this review examines influences on the real and perceived benefit-to-risk ratio for opioids and provides clinicians with a practical approach to prescribing opioids that minimizes the risk for abuse/misuse. There is appreciable clinical trial and observational evidence of efficacy/effectiveness with opioids used for pain management over the short or long term when considered in the context of pharmacologic alternatives. Enhancing the relative safety and minimizing the risk for abuse/misuse may be achieved through proactive prescription practices that include careful patient selection, risk assessment, individualized and multimodal treatment plans with established goals, initiating opioid treatment cautiously with an exit plan in place, ongoing assessments of response to therapy, and routine patient monitoring. Additionally, prescribing opioids with a lower potential for abuse or misuse (e.g. abuse-deterrent formulations) may provide a benefit. Using a pragmatic approach to prescribing practices, we postulate that the balance between benefit and risk can be favorable for opioid therapy in select patients, even for long-term treatment of chronic pain.

Rational Urine Drug Monitoring in Patients Receiving Opioids for Chronic Pain: Consensus Recommendations.

Objective: To develop consensus recommendations on urine drug monitoring (UDM) in patients with chronic pain who are prescribed opioids. Methods: An 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. Results: Definitive (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. Conclusions: Although 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.

Reduction of opioid use and improvement in chronic pain in opioid-experienced patients after topical analgesic treatment: an exploratory analysis.

OBJECTIVE: There is a need to identify safe and effective opioid-sparing multimodal alternative treatment strategies and approaches, including topical analgesics, for opioid-experienced chronic pain patients to mitigate the risk of addiction, misuse, and abuse of opioids. METHODS: This subset analysis from a prospective, observational study evaluated changes in opioid use, other concurrent medication use, and pain severity and interference in opioid-experienced patients (OEP) treated with topical analgesics for chronic pain with measures obtained at baseline and 3- and 6- month follow-up. RESULTS: The 3-month opioid-experienced patient (3-month OEP) group included 121 patients who completed baseline and 3-month follow-up assessments; 27 opioid-experienced patients completed baseline and 6-month follow-up assessments (6-month OEP). Demographic characteristics, and mean pain severity and interference scores were similar between groups at baseline. After treatment with topical analgesics, 49% of patients in the 3-month and 56% of patients in the 6-month group reported they had completely discontinued use of opioids. In addition, 31% of patients at the 3-month assessment and 30% at the 6-month assessment reported that they were no longer taking any pain medication. Other concurrent medications decreased by 65% after 3 months, and 74% after 6 months. There were statistically significant decreases from baseline in pain severity and interference scores within the 3- (CI:0.7-1.4, 1.4-2.2) and 6-month (CI:0.7-2.4 (severity); CI:1.2-3.5 (interference)) OEP groups. CONCLUSIONS: Opioid use and other concurrent medications decreased among opioid-experienced chronic pain patients after 3- and 6- months of treatment with topical analgesics. Pain severity and interference scores also decreased. The topical analgesics were reported to be effective and safe for the treatment of chronic pain, with randomized controlled trials needed to confirm these findings.

Changes in pain and concurrent pain medication use following compounded topical analgesic treatment for chronic pain: 3- and 6-month follow-up results from the prospective, observational Optimizing Patient Experience and Response to Topical Analgesics study.

BACKGROUND: Opioids and other controlled substances prescribed for chronic pain are associated with abuse, addiction, and death, prompting national initiatives to identify safe and effective pain management strategies including topical analgesics. METHODS: This prospective, observational study evaluated changes from baseline in overall mean severity and interference scores on the Brief Pain Inventory scale and the use of concurrent pain medications at 3- and 6-month follow-up assessments in chronic pain patients treated with topical analgesics. Changes in pain severity and interference and medication usage were compared between treated patients and unmatched and matched controls. RESULTS: The unmatched intervention group (unmatched-IG) included 631 patients who completed baseline and 3-month follow-up surveys (3-month unmatched-IG) and 158 who completed baseline and 6-month follow-up assessments (6-month unmatched-IG). Baseline and 3-month follow-up data were provided by 76 unmatched controls and 76 matched controls (3-month unmatched-CG and matched-CG), and 51 unmatched and 36 matched patients completed baseline and 6-month follow-up surveys (6-month unmatched-CG and matched-CG). Baseline demographic characteristics and mean pain severity and interference scores were similar between groups. There were statistically significant decreases from baseline in mean pain severity and interference scores within the 3- and 6-month unmatched-IG (all P<0.001). Significantly greater decreases in the mean change from baseline in pain severity and interference scores were evident for the 3- and 6-month unmatched-IG versus unmatched-CG (all P<0.001), with similar results when the 3- and 6-month matched-IG and matched-CG were compared. A higher percentage of the 3- and 6-month unmatched-IG and matched-IG de-escalated use of concurrent pain medications (all P<0.001), while significantly higher percentages of the unmatched-CG and matched-CG escalated medication use. Side effects were reported by <1% of the unmatched-IG. CONCLUSION: Topical analgesics appear to be effective and safe for the treatment of chronic pain, with randomized controlled trials needed to confirm these findings.

An overview of prodrug technology and its application for developing abuse-deterrent opioids.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has classified prescription drug abuse and overdose deaths as an epidemic. Prescription drug overdose is now the leading cause of injury death, with rates that have more than doubled since 1999. This crisis has developed concurrently with the increased prescribing and availability analgesic drugs, especially opioids, resulting from an effort on the part of clinicians to address a critical need for improved pain assessment and treatment. Clinicians have recognized that oftentimes, opioid analgesics are one of the few remaining options for patients who suffer with severe pain. A 2015 fact sheet issued by the Office of National Drug Policy stated: "While we must ensure better access to prescription medications to alleviate suffering, it is also vital that we do all we can to reduce the diversion and abuse of pharmaceuticals." The US Food and Drug Administration has issued guidance that encourages the research and development of abuse-deterrent formulation of opioids which have the potential to curtail abuse. Included among the recommended formulations for development of abuse-deterrent opioids are prodrugs. Prodrugs are chemically modified versions of pharmacological agents that must undergo a biochemical conversion following administration, often by enzymatic cleavage, to free the active drug. Prodrugs may be inherently abuse-deterrent because they are inactive or significantly less active until conversion to the active drug. This requirement for conversion in the GI tract can modify the pharmacokinetic profile and eliminate or reduce the euphoria when abusers change the route of administration. Abusers often attempt to extract the active drug for injection or insufflation. Prodrugs can be designed to be resistant to crushing or dissolving. In this article, we review the concept of prodrugs and introduce and examine the potential of abuse-deterrent opioid prodrugs.

Opioid abuse-deterrent strategies: role of clinicians in acute pain management.

Opioid abuse is a healthcare and societal problem that burdens individuals, their families and the healthcare professionals who care for them. Restricting access to opioid analgesics is one option to deter abuse, but this may prevent pain patients in need from obtaining effective analgesics. Therefore, strategies that mitigate the risk of opioid abuse while maintaining access are being pursued by several stakeholders including federal agencies, state governments, payors, researchers, the pharmaceutical industry and clinicians. Federal agency efforts have included required licensure and documentation for prescribing opioids, implementation of risk evaluation and mitigation strategies, and guidance on assessment and labeling of opioid abuse-deterrent formulations. In addition, state governments and payors have enacted monitoring programs, and pharmaceutical companies continue to develop abuse-deterrent opioid formulations. Strategies for clinicians to mitigate opioid abuse include comprehensive patient assessment and universal precautions (e.g. use of multimodal analgesia and abuse-deterrent opioid formulations, urine toxicology screening, participation in prescription drug monitoring and risk evaluation and mitigation strategy programs).

Opioid Related Endocrinopathy.

OBJECTIVE: Millions of patients continue to require opioid analgesics for control of moderate to severe chronic pain, which is a disease that affects more Americans than cancer, heart disease, and diabetes combined. Common opioid adverse effects include constipation, sedation, and nausea. A lesser-known sequelae is opioid induced androgen deficiency (OPIAD). The objective of this review was to better characterize the effects of opioids on the endocrine system. METHODS: Published data were evaluated to identify links between opioid use and hypogonadism, as well as to describe proposed physiological mechanisms. RESULTS: Chronic opioid use may predispose to hypogonadism through alteration of the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis as well as the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal-axis. The resulting hypogonadism and hypotestosteronism may contribute to impaired sexual function, decreased libido, infertility, and osteoporosis- none of which may be clinically recognized as opioid related. CONCLUSIONS: OPIAD is a recognized consequence of long-term opioid therapy. Patients initiated or maintained on opioids should be queried about symptoms that might suggest hypogonadism including irregular menses, reduced libido, depression, fatigue, and hot flashes or night sweats. Some clinicians recommend assessment of baseline testosterone levels prior to initiating therapy. Additional data appear necessary to formulate guidelines regarding the diagnosis and management of OPIAD. Options include, rotating, reducing the dose or type, or cessation of opioid therapy or adding hormonal supplementation in the form of androgen replacement therapy. There are multiple formulations of testosterone available for replacement therapy, which is usually guided by laboratory measurements.

Acute pain: effective management requires comprehensive assessment.

Pain is among the most common reasons that patients seek medical care, and inadequate assessment may result in suboptimal management. Acute pain in response to trauma or surgery can be complex, variable, and dynamic, but its assessment is often simplistic and brief. One-dimensional rating scale measures of pain severity facilitate rapid evaluation and often form the basis of treatment algorithms. However, additional features of pain should inform the selection of a treatment regimen, and can include pain qualities, duration, impact on functional capabilities, and underlying cause. Patient age, sex, psychosocial features, and comorbid conditions are also important features to consider. Use of a multidimensional tool is recommended for assessing many of these features if time permits. Additionally, clinicians often fail to recognize or consider the potentially detrimental long-term effects of acute pain. As the United States continues to experience a prescription drug crisis, a "universal precautions" approach including abuse risk assessment and abuse deterrence strategies should be implemented for patients receiving opioids. Increased efforts and research are necessary to enhance the utility of available acute pain assessment tools. Developing more comprehensive tools for patient assessment is the first step in achieving the ultimate goal of effective acute pain management. The objectives of this review are to summarize issues regarding the complexity of acute pain and to provide suggestions for its evaluation.

Risks, management, and monitoring of combination opioid, benzodiazepines, and/or alcohol use.

The concurrent use of opioids, benzodiazepines (BZDs), and/or alcohol poses a formidable challenge for clinicians who manage chronic pain. While the escalating use of opioid analgesics for the treatment of chronic pain and the concomitant rise in opioid-related abuse and misuse are widely recognized trends, the contribution of combination use of BZDs, alcohol, and/or other sedative agents to opioid-related morbidity and mortality is underappreciated, even when these agents are used appropriately. Patients with chronic pain who use opioid analgesics along with BZDs and/or alcohol are at higher risk for fatal/nonfatal overdose and have more aberrant behaviors. Few practice guidelines for BZD treatment are readily available, especially when they are combined clinically with opioid analgesics and other central nervous system-depressant agents. However, coadministration of these agents produces a defined increase in rates of adverse events, overdose, and death, warranting close monitoring and consideration when treating patients with pain. To improve patient outcomes, ongoing screening for aberrant behavior, monitoring of treatment compliance, documentation of medical necessity, and the adjustment of treatment to clinical changes are essential. In this article, we review the prevalence and pharmacologic consequences of BZDs and/or alcohol use among patients with pain on chronic opioid therapy, as well as the importance of urine drug testing, an indispensable tool for therapeutic drug monitoring, which helps to ensure the continued safety of patients. Regardless of risk or known aberrant drug-related behaviors, patients on chronic opioid therapy should periodically undergo urine drug testing to confirm adherence to the treatment plan.

Assessment of extended-release opioid analgesics for the treatment of chronic pain.

Approximately 3.8 million patients annually receive extended-release (ER) or long-acting opioid prescriptions in the outpatient setting, around half of which are written by primary care physicians. Compared with short-acting, immediate-release (IR) formulations, ER and oral long-acting opioid analgesics are associated with clinical advantages, such as extended periods of time during which drug plasma levels are within the therapeutic range, decreased peak-to-trough fluctuations, and prolonged analgesia over the dosing period. Additionally, ER opioids offer a more convenient, less frequent dosing regimen to chronic pain patients who are often taking several concomitant medications. The increased utilization of ER opioids has been accompanied by a rise in the misuse and abuse of these formulations. Certain pharmacokinetic parameters (e.g., longer time to maximum drug plasma concentration, lower maximum drug plasma concentration) may decrease the abuse potential of intact ER opioids by limiting the positive subjective and reinforcing effects relative to IR formulations. Putative abuse-deterrent formulations have also recently been introduced to impede physical manipulation of these formulations, or reduce the harm resulting from such behavior. Such formulations may represent an incremental advance to reduce non-oral forms of abuse. This article reviews the pharmacokinetic profiles and abuse-deterrent features of newer ER opioid analgesics for the treatment of moderate to severe chronic pain.

Clinical strategies for the primary health care professional to minimize prescription opioid abuse.

Prescription opioid analgesic therapy can be effective in managing chronic noncancer pain in appropriately selected patients. However, the risks and benefits of prescription opioids should be carefully considered when treating this patient population. A dramatic increase in opioid-related morbidity and mortality has been observed in the United States in the past decade. Therefore, health care providers must balance the treatment of chronic pain with the need to minimize the risks of opioid misuse, abuse, addiction, and diversion. Current literature suggests that most patients with chronic pain are managed at the primary care level. However, many of these practitioners are not skilled in risk assessment, stratification, and monitoring. This article reviews strategies and tools that providers may implement to help identify appropriate patients for chronic opioid therapy and recognize signs of drug-related aberrant behaviors and abuse. In addition, the potential role of abuse-deterrent, extended-release opioid formulations to reduce risk in patients and nonmedical users of opioids is introduced. Collectively, these preventative measures may effectively reduce opioid misuse, abuse, and diversion without denying adequate analgesia in appropriate patients.

The changing landscape of opioid prescribing: long-acting and extended-release opioid class-wide Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy.

Prescriptions for opioid analgesics to manage moderate-to-severe chronic noncancer pain have increased markedly over the last decade, as have postmarketing reports of adverse events associated with opioids. As an unintentional consequence of greater prescription opioid utilization, there has been the parallel increase in misuse, abuse, and overdose, which are serious risks associated with all opioid analgesics. In response to these concerns, the Food and Drug Administration announced the requirement for a class-wide Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) for long-acting and extended-release (ER) opioid analgesics in April 2011. An understanding of the details of this REMS will be of particular importance to primary care providers. The class-wide REMS is focused on educating health care providers and patients on appropriate prescribing and safe use of ER opioids. Support from primary care will be necessary for the success of this REMS, as these clinicians are the predominant providers of care and the main prescribers of opioid analgesics for patients with chronic pain. Although currently voluntary, future policy will likely dictate that providers undergo mandatory training to continue prescribing medications within this class. This article outlines the elements of the class-wide REMS for ER opioids and clarifies the impact on primary care providers with regard to training, patient education, and clinical practice.