Urine drug testing in chronic pain.

Therapeutic use, overuse, abuse, and diversion of controlled substances in managing chronic non-cancer pain continue to be an issue for physicians and patients. The challenge is to eliminate or significantly curtail abuse of controlled prescription drugs while still assuring the proper treatment of those patients. Some physicians are apprehensive regarding the use of chronic opioid therapy in chronic non-cancer pain due to a perceived lack of proven evidence, the misuse of opioids, tolerance, dependence, and hyperalgesia. However, others have criticized the underuse of opioids, resulting in the undertreatment of pain. It has been the convention that federal, state, and local governments; professional associations; as well as pharmaceutical companies, physicians, accrediting bodies, medical licensure boards, and the public all share responsibility for preventing abuse of controlled prescription drugs. To overcome the critical challenge of eliminating or significantly curtailing abuse of controlled prescription drugs and at the same time assuring the appropriate treatment for those patients who can be helped by these medications, it is crucial to practice adherence or compliance monitoring of opioid therapy. Compliance monitoring has been shown to be crucial in delivering proper opioid therapy and preserving this therapy for the future. Urine drug testing (UDT) is considered one of the mainstays of adherence monitoring in conjunction with prescription monitoring programs and other screening tools, however, UDT is associated with multiple limitations secondary to potential pitfalls related to drug metabolism, reliability of the tests, and the knowledge of the pain physician. UDT is a widely available and familiar method for monitoring opioid use in chronic pain patients. UDT can provide tools for tracking patient compliance and expose possible drug misuse and abuse. UDT is one of the major tools of adherence monitoring in the assessment of the patient's predisposition to, and patterns of, drug misuse/abuse--a vital first step towards establishing and maintaining the safe and effective use of opioid analgesics in the treatment of chronic pain. This comprehensive review provides the role of UDT in monitoring chronic opioid therapy along with reliability and accuracy, appropriate use, overuse, misuse, and abuse.

Opioid guidelines in the management of chronic non-cancer pain.

BACKGROUND: Opioid abuse has increased at an alarming rate. However, available evidence suggests a wide variance in the use of opioids, as documented by different medical specialties, medical boards, advocacy groups, and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). OBJECTIVES: The objective of these opioid guidelines by the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) is to provide guidance for the use of opioids for the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain, to bring consistency in opioid philosophy among the many diverse groups involved, to improve the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain, and to reduce the incidence of drug diversion. DESIGN: A policy committee evaluated a systematic review of the available literature regarding opioid use in managing chronic non-cancer pain. This resulted in the formulation of the essentials of guidelines, a series of potential evidence linkages representing conclusions, followed by statements regarding relationships between clinical interventions and outcomes. METHODS: Consistent with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) hierarchical and comprehensive standards, the elements of the guideline preparation process included literature searches, literature synthesis, systematic review, consensus evaluation, open forum presentations, formal endorsement by the Board of Directors of the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP), and blinded peer review. Evidence was designated based on scientific merit as Level I (conclusive), Level II (strong), Level III (moderate), Level IV (limited), or Level V (indeterminate). RESULTS: After an extensive review and analysis of the literature, the authors utilized two systematic reviews, two narrative reviews, 32 studies included in prior systematic reviews, and 10 additional studies in the synthesis of evidence. The evidence was limited. CONCLUSION: These guidelines evaluated the evidence for the use of opioids in the management of chronic non-cancer pain and recommendations for management. These guidelines are based on the best available scientific evidence and do not constitute inflexible treatment recommendations. Because of the changing body of evidence, this document is not intended to be a "standard of care."

Guidelines for the use of controlled substances in the management of chronic pain.

Controlled substance abuse has increased at an alarming rate. However, available evidence suggests a wide variance in the use of controlled substances, as documented by different medical specialties, medical boards, advocacy groups, and the Drug Enforcement Administration. The primary objective of controlled substance guidelines by American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) is to provide guidance for the use of controlled substances for the treatment of chronic pain. It is anticipated that these practical guidelines will improve quality of care, patient access, and quality of life. Additional benefits include improved treatment efficiency and efficacy, and cost containment by improving the risk-benefit ratio of treating patients with chronic pain. Further goals of this manuscript are to bring consistency in opioid philosophy among the many diverse groups involved, to improve the treatment of chronic pain patients with medically appropriate controlled substances, and to reduce the incidence of drug diversion. These guidelines also reinforce the need for systematic evaluation and ongoing care of patients with chronic or persistent pain. ASIPP controlled substance guidelines also provide a discussion of the epidemiology of chronic pain, the role of controlled substances in treating chronic pain, various aspects of drug abuse, pharmacological considerations, clinical effectiveness of controlled substances, options for treatment monitoring and drug testing and a review of terminology used in addiction medicine. These guidelines do not constitute inflexible treatment recommendations. It is expected that a provider will establish a plan of care on a case-by-case basis, taking into account an individual patient's medical condition, personal needs, and preferences, and the physician's experience. Based on an individual patient's needs, controlled substance prescribing and treatment different from that outlined here may be warranted. These guidelines do not represent "standard of care."