11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Opioid Prescribing: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal of Guidelines for Chronic Pain

      research-article
      , MD, MSHS, , MPH, , MD, MPH, , MD, MSHS, , MD, , MD, , MD
      Annals of internal medicine

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background:

          Deaths due to prescription opioid overdoses have increased dramatically. High-quality guidelines could help clinicians mitigate risks associated with opioid therapy.

          Purpose:

          To evaluate the quality and content of guidelines on the use of opioids for chronic pain.

          Data Sources:

          MEDLINE, National Guideline Clearinghouse, specialty society Web sites, and international guideline clearinghouses (searched in July 2013).

          Study Selection:

          Guidelines published between January 2007 and July 2013 addressing use of opioids for chronic pain in adults were selected. Guidelines on specific settings, populations, and conditions were excluded.

          Data Extraction:

          Guidelines and associated systematic reviews were evaluated using the AGREE II and AMSTAR instruments, respectively, and recommendations for mitigating opioid-related risks were compared.

          Data Synthesis:

          Thirteen guidelines met selection criteria. Overall AGREE II scores were 3.00 to 6.20 (on a scale of 1 to 7). The AMSTAR ratings were poor to fair for 10 guidelines. Two received high AGREE II and AMSTAR scores. A majority of the guidelines recommend that clinicians avoid doses greater than 90 to 200 mg of morphine equivalents per day, have additional knowledge to prescribe methadone, recognize risks of fentanyl patches, titrate cautiously, and reduce doses by at least 25% to 50% when switching opioids. Guidelines also agree that opioid risk assessment tools, written treatment agreements, and urine drug testing can mitigate risks. Most recommendations are supported by observational data or expert consensus.

          Limitation:

          Exclusion of non–English-language guidelines and reliance on published information.

          Conclusion:

          Despite limited evidence and variable development methods, recent guidelines on chronic pain agree on several opioid risk mitigation strategies, including upper dosing thresholds; cautions with certain medications; attention to drug–drug and drug–disease interactions; and use of risk assessment tools, treatment agreements, and urine drug testing. Future research should directly examine the effectiveness of opioid risk mitigation strategies.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          0372351
          596
          Ann Intern Med
          Ann. Intern. Med.
          Annals of internal medicine
          0003-4819
          1539-3704
          20 August 2019
          07 January 2014
          03 September 2019
          : 160
          : 1
          : 38-47
          Affiliations
          David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA and UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, Los Angeles, California; RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California; and Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon.
          Author notes
          Requests for Single Reprints: Teryl K. Nuckols, Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, 911 Broxton Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90095; tnuckols@ 123456mednet.ucla.edu .

          Current Author Addresses: Drs. Nuckols, Popescu, Diamant, Doyle, and Di Capua: Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, 911 Broxton Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90095.

          Ms. Anderson: UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, 650 Charles E. Young Drive South, 16-035 Center for Health Sciences, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1772.

          Dr. Chou: Oregon Health & Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Road, Portland, OR 97239-3098.

          Author Contributions: Conception and design: T.K. Nuckols, A.L. Diamant, R. Chou.

          Analysis and interpretation of the data: T.K. Nuckols, L. Anderson, I. Popescu, A.L. Diamant, B. Doyle, P. Di Capua, R. Chou.

          Drafting of the article: T.K. Nuckols, I. Popescu, A.L. Diamant, R. Chou.

          Critical revision of the article for important intellectual content: T.K. Nuckols, I. Popescu, A.L. Diamant, B. Doyle, R. Chou.

          Final approval of the article: T.K. Nuckols, I. Popescu, A.L. Diamant, P. Di Capua, R. Chou.

          Provision of study materials or patients: T.K. Nuckols.

          Statistical expertise: T.K. Nuckols.

          Obtaining of funding: T.K. Nuckols.

          Administrative, technical, or logistic support: T.K. Nuckols, L. Anderson.

          Collection and assembly of data: T.K. Nuckols, L. Anderson, I. Popescu, A.L. Diamant, B. Doyle, P. Di Capua.

          Article
          PMC6721847 PMC6721847 6721847 hhspa1044270
          10.7326/0003-4819-160-1-201401070-00732
          6721847
          24217469
          01b89e6f-afe8-4b0d-8be8-d7ea27748909
          History
          Categories
          Article

          Comments

          Comment on this article