Analgesia for the treatment of acute pancreatitis: a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Gastrointestinal hospitalisations in the USA cause over US$130 billion in expenditures, and acute pancreatitis is a leading cause of these hospitalisations. Adequate pain control is one of the primary treatment goals for acute pancreatitis. Though opioids are commonly used for analgesia in these patients, there have been concerns about short-term and long-term side effects of using opioids. Recently, non-opioid medications have been studied to treat pain in patients with acute pancreatitis. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to assess the comparative efficacy of analgesic medication for non-severe, acute pancreatitis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search multiple electronic databases for randomised controlled trials that study pain management in patients with non-severe, acute pancreatitis. The intervention will be any analgesic for acute pancreatitis in the hospital setting. The comparison group will be patients who received a placebo or other active interventions for pain management. The primary outcomes of interest include pain scores and the need for supplementary analgesia. The secondary outcomes will be serious adverse events, local complications, progression to severe pancreatitis, transfer to the intensive care unit, length of hospitalisation, time to start enteral feeds, 30-day all-cause mortality and Quality of Life Scale scores. If sufficient homogeneity exists among included studies, the findings will be pooled using a traditional pairwise and network meta-analysis. The risk of bias in randomised control trials will be evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach will be used to report the certainty of evidence. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This systematic review will not involve direct contact with human subjects. The findings of this review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. They will give healthcare providers a better awareness of the optimal analgesic medication for pain treatment in non-severe, acute pancreatitis.

The Role of Health Coaching in Pain and Palliative Care Pharmacy Practice.

Whole-person care is essential in the management of patients with chronic pain and serious illness. Pain, suffering, and comfort do not fall under typical chronic disease management and cannot be boxed nicely into algorithms of evidence-focused, biomarker-based goal achievement like hypertension or diabetes. Current therapies, including surgical, interventional, and analgesic modalities may be only marginally effective, and have brought with them questionable practices, high cost, and an opioid epidemic. Patient-focused goals are gaining favor, and exploration of methods to enhance this approach include health coaching. In the setting of pain management, this would include pain coaching. This commentary will highlight the role of health coaching in the setting of chronic disease and pain management, and the pharmacists' qualifications and potential contributions to health and pain coaching.

A Survey on Opioid Tapering Practices, Policies, and Perspectives by Pain and Palliative Care Pharmacists.

Opioid tapering is an essential clinical tool to utilize for a variety of reasons, including safety and analgesic optimization. The need for individualized regimens reveals a corresponding need for healthcare providers who can actively manage patients throughout the process. Pharmacists have taken on an integral role for achieving success in opioid tapering. This survey was conducted to describe the current opioid tapering practices of pain and palliative care pharmacists. A Qualtrics survey was offered to the Society of Pain and Palliative Care Pharmacist members. The majority (87%) indicated they specialized in pain management. Almost all respondents (98%) reported providing tapering recommendations and 82% reported being involved with patient monitoring throughout the taper. The majority (multiple responses could be chosen) noted that the indication for initiating an opioid taper was due to abuse/misuse (91%), reduced overall efficacy (89%), and adverse drug reactions (78%). The most common follow-up intervals during tapering were weekly (15%), every 2 weeks (22%), and every 4 weeks (44%). This practice-based survey, though small, showed that pharmacists in pain management and palliative care are actively involved in opioid tapering. This survey will hopefully serve as a foundation for continuing research into opioid tapering and the pharmacist's role therein.

The Clinical Pharmacist's Role in Perioperative Surgical Pain Management.

The purpose of this quality improvement initiative was to demonstrate the value of having a clinical pain pharmacist in transitional perioperative pain management. Patients were referred to the pain pharmacist prior to elective surgery. The pharmacist worked with the patients to develop an individualized perioperative analgesic plan and provided education regarding surgery. The enrolled patients were followed throughout their surgical course by the pharmacist, and upon discharge the pharmacist conducted follow-up phone interviews approximately weekly for up to a month. This was followed by a phone survey regarding satisfaction with this service. Referring providers were also surveyed to determine satisfaction. Greater than 90% of patients reported they were "very appreciative" of the pharmacist talking to them about a pain management plan both before surgery and after discharge. One hundred percent of referring providers who responded to the survey reported they were satisfied with the pharmacist role in perioperative pain management. Pain management pharmacy specialists contribute to positive pain management outcomes for patients and surgical provider satisfaction.

Pearls for opioid use in seriously ill patients.

Opioids are often the foundation of pain management in seriously ill patients. Unfortunately, even experienced providers carry with them information that they consider "fact", when this information is not based on scientific evidence, but on "myth". Several topics were elicited based on common beliefs and misconceptions in clinical practice. These were identified via a survey of pharmacist pain and palliative care providers. Pearls from these topics were chosen that were based on evidence and would have the greatest bearing on clinical practice. The pearls address topics such as not using opioids as first-line analgesics for all types of pain, opioid-induced hyperalgesia, opioid risk management in cancer patients, use of buprenorphine in hospice and palliative care settings and use of naloxone in seriously ill patients. The pearls are supported by clinical evidence extracted from several references. They are intended to make readers give thought to opioid therapy which is strictly evidence-based, and not historical or anecdote-based. Practical recommendations are provided to give readers a starting point to base clinical decisions going forward. Readers may discover that "facts" they once learned about opioid use in seriously ill patients are actually "myths" that are a figment of the past.

Gabapentin is ineffective as an analgesic adjunct in the immediate postburn period.

Successful treatment of burn pain requires a multimodality approach. Although opioid agents are the mainstay, other nonopioid agents, such as anticonvulsants, are frequently employed for pain control, with unknown benefits. The authors sought to determine the efficacy of gabapentin in acute burn pain management. Patients admitted to the burn center with burns more than 5% total body surface area and expected length of stay more than 48 hours were randomized and prospectively enrolled in this double-blind, placebo-controlled study from February 2010 to September 2011. Drug escalation and titration were done by protocol. Pain was assessed by unit protocol with the Numeric Rating Scale. Neuropathic pain and anxiety were recorded at least biweekly. Psychosocial adjustment was assessed at follow-up. Opioid medications were converted to morphine equivalents. Differences between pain levels and opioid consumption were analyzed between groups with the Student's t-test and χ test, respectively. The study was designed to detect a difference of 22% in opioid use between the two study groups with an enrollment of 50 patients with α of 0.05 and ß of 80%. P < .5 was considered significant. Fifty-three patients consented for the study and received the loading dose. Four patients withdrew. Both an intention-to-treat and actual treatment analysis were performed on all 53 patients. The placebo and drug populations were well matched for demographic variables, body surface area burned, and need for surgical intervention. The average length of stay was 11 ± 6.8 days and did not vary between groups. The study drug group received 10.8 ± 0.67 days of study drug, with eight patients receiving a dosage of 300 mg thrice daily (TID), 24 receiving 600 mg TID, 14 receiving 800 mg TID, and seven receiving 1200 mg TID. The incidence of neuropathic pain was 39% in the study drug arm and 38% in the placebo group. Neither pain scores (rest and procedural) nor opioid consumption differed between the groups. Forty-three patients (81.1%) were assessed at their first clinic visit. There was no difference in psychosocial functioning in either treatment group. In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, the use of gabapentin in acute burn pain management did not decrease pain scores or lessen opioid requirements. Further research into nonopioid alternatives for burn pain analgesia is needed.

Consensus recommendations from the strategic planning summit for pain and palliative care pharmacy practice.

Pain and symptoms related to palliative care (pain and palliative care [PPC]) are often undertreated. This is largely owing to the complexity in the provision of care and the potential discrepancy in education among the various health care professionals required to deliver care. Pharmacists are frequently involved in the care of PPC patients, although pharmacy education currently does not offer or require a strong curriculum commitment to this area of practice. The Strategic Planning Summit for the Advancement of Pain and Palliative Care Pharmacy was convened to address opportunities to improve the education of pharmacists and pharmacy students on PPC. Six working groups were charged with objectives to address barriers and opportunities in the areas of student and professional assessment, model curricula, postgraduate training, professional education, and credentialing. Consensus was reached among the working groups and presented to the Summit Advisory Board for adoption. These recommendations will provide guidance on improving the care provided to PPC patients by pharmacists through integrating education at all points along the professional education continuum.

Methadone treatment for pain states.

Methadone is a synthetic opioid with potent analgesic effects. Although it is associated commonly with the treatment of opioid addiction, it may be prescribed by licensed family physicians for analgesia. Methadone's unique pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics make it a valuable option in the management of cancer pain and other chronic pain, including neuropathic pain states. It may be an appropriate replacement for opioids when side effects have limited further dosage escalation. Metabolism of and response to methadone varies with each patient. Transition to methadone and dosage titration should be completed slowly and with frequent monitoring. Conversion should be based on the current daily oral morphine equivalent dosage. After starting methadone therapy or increasing the dosage, systemic toxicity may not become apparent for several days. Some medications alter the absorption or metabolism of methadone, and their concurrent use may require dosing adjustments. Methadone is less expensive than other sustained-release opioid formulations.