Article

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

American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians, Paducah, KY 42001, USA.
Pain physician (Impact Factor: 4.77). 02/2006; 9(1):1-39.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT 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).
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.
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.
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).
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.
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."

0 Bookmarks
 · 
201 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract Between 2002 and 2007, the nonmedical use of prescription pain relievers grew from 11.0 million to 12.5 million people in the United States. Societal costs attributable to prescription opioid abuse were estimated at $55.7 billion in 2007. The purpose of this study was to comprehensively review the recent clinical and economic evaluations of prescription opioid abuse. A comprehensive literature search was conducted for studies published from 2002 to 2012. Articles were included if they were original research studies in English that reported the clinical and economic burden associated with prescription opioid abuse. A total of 23 studies (183 unique citations identified, 54 articles subjected to full text review) were included in this review and analysis. Findings from the review demonstrated that rates of opioid overdose-related deaths ranged from 5528 deaths in 2002 to 14,800 in 2008. Furthermore, overdose reportedly results in 830,652 years of potential life lost before age 65. Opioid abusers were generally more likely to utilize medical services, such as emergency department, physician outpatient visits, and inpatient hospital stays, relative to non-abusers. When compared to a matched control group (non-abusers), mean annual excess health care costs for opioid abusers with private insurance ranged from $14,054 to $20,546. Similarly, the mean annual excess health care costs for opioid abusers with Medicaid ranged from $5874 to $15,183. The issue of opioid abuse has significant clinical and economic consequences for patients, health care providers, commercial and government payers, and society as a whole. (Population Health Management 2014;17:xxx-xxx).
    Population Health Management 07/2014; 17(6). DOI:10.1089/pop.2013.0098 · 1.18 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The withdrawal syndrome after the cessation of μ-opioid receptor agonists remains an obstacle in the clinical treatment of pain. We recently showed that peripheral opioid receptors play a significant role in the withdrawal signs in morphine-dependent mice. Therefore, the present study was designed to investigate the underlying mechanism of morphine-induced withdrawal symptoms, especially the peripheral oriented body-weight loss that accompanied diarrhea, in mice. Withdrawal signs were precipitated by the injection of naloxone 1 day after the slow-release emulsion administration of morphine. Withdrawal body-weight loss and diarrhea precipitated by naloxone in morphine-dependent mice were significantly suppressed by ritanserin (a 5-HT2 receptor antagonist), olanzapine (5-HT2/D2 receptor antagonist) and fullerene (a free radical scavenger), whereas neither ondansetron (a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist) nor atropine (a muscarine receptor antagonist) significantly suppressed naloxone-precipitated diarrhea. 5-HT3-receptors (but not 5-HT2-receptors) are known to play a significant role in 5-HT-induced diarrhea. Therefore, we also examined the effects of ritanserin and fullerene on 5-HT-induced diarrhea in morphine-dependent mice. Ritaserin significantly suppressed 5-HT-induced diarrhea in morphine-dependent mice, but not saline-treated mice. These results suggest that peripheral 5-HT2-receptor function could be altered in morphine-dependent mice, and the blockade of 5-HT2 receptor or free radical scavengers may be useful for the treatment of opioid-withdrawal diarrhea.
    European Journal of Pharmacology 07/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.ejphar.2014.07.009 · 2.68 Impact Factor
  • 05/2014;

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
78 Downloads
Available from
May 16, 2014