Search

Assessing and mitigating the abuse liability (AL) of analgesics is an urgent clinical and societal problem. Analgesics have traditionally been assessed in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) designed to demonstrate analgesic efficacy relative to placebo or an active comparator. In these trials, rigorous, prospectively designed assessment for AL is generally not performed. The Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) convened a consensus meeting to review the available evidence and discuss methods for improving the assessment of the AL of analgesics in clinical trials in patients with pain. Recommendations for improved assessment include: (1) performing trials that include individuals with diverse risks of abuse; (2) improving the assessment of AL in clinical trials (eg, training study personnel in the principles of abuse and addiction behaviors, designing the trial to assess AL outcomes as primary or secondary outcome measures depending on the trial objectives); (3) performing standardized assessment of outcomes, including targeted observations by study personnel and using structured adverse events query forms that ask all subjects specifically for certain symptoms (such as euphoria and craving); and (4) collecting detailed information about events of potential concern (eg, unexpected urine drug testing results, loss of study medication, and dropping out of the trial). The authors also propose a research agenda for improving the assessment of AL in future trials., (Copyright © 2013 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study characterizes the association between pain score documentation and analgesic administration among pediatric emergency department patients., Methods: This is a secondary analysis of a prospectively collected research database from an academic emergency department. Records of randomly sampled pediatric patients seen between August 2005 and October 2006 were reviewed. Pain scores from age-appropriate 0 to 10 numeric pain rating scales were abstracted (≥ 7 considered severe). Descriptive statistics and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated., Results: An initial pain score was documented in 87.4% of 4514 patients enrolled, 797 (17.7%) with severe pain. Of these, 63.1% (95% CI, 59.7%-66.5%) received an analgesic, and 16.7% (95% CI, 14.2%-19.5%) received it parenterally. Initial pain score documentation was similar across age groups. Patients younger than 2 years with severe pain were less likely to receive analgesics compared with teenaged patients with severe pain (32.1%; 95% CI, 15.9%-52.3%) versus 67.6% (95% CI, 63.2%-71.7%). Of 502 patients with documented severe pain who received analgesic, 23.3% (95% CI, 19.7%-27.3%) had a second pain score documented within 2 hours of the first. Documentation of a second pain score was associated with the use of parenteral analgesic and a second dose of analgesic., Conclusions: In this population, initial pain score documentation was common, but severe pain was frequently untreated, most often in the youngest patients. Documentation of a second pain score was not common but was associated with more aggressive pain management when it occurred. Further study is needed to investigate causation and to explore interventions that increase the likelihood of severe pain being treated.

Opioids are essential to the management of pain in many patients, but they also are associated with potential risks for abuse, overdose, and diversion. A number of efforts have been devoted to the development of abuse-deterrent formulations of opioids to reduce these risks. This article summarizes a consensus meeting that was organized to propose recommendations for the types of clinical studies that can be used to assess the abuse deterrence of different opioid formulations. Because of the many types of individuals who may be exposed to opioids, an opioid formulation will need to be studied in several populations using various study designs to determine its abuse-deterrent capabilities. It is recommended that the research conducted to evaluate abuse deterrence should include studies assessing: (1) abuse liability, (2) the likelihood that opioid abusers will find methods to circumvent the deterrent properties of the formulation, (3) measures of misuse and abuse in randomized clinical trials involving pain patients with both low risk and high risk of abuse, and (4) postmarketing epidemiological studies., (Copyright © 2012 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Pain is common in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), but estimates of its prevalence have varied widely. The literature describing pain in MS patients spans four decades and has employed a range of different methodologies. We undertook a systematic review in order to summarize current understanding of the association between MS and pain and provide a basis for the design and interpretation of future studies. The point prevalence of pain in patients with MS is nearly 50%, and approximately 75% of patients report having had pain within one month of assessment. Pain adversely affects most aspects of health-related quality of life, including functional domains such as the ability to work. The presence of pain in patients with MS is associated with increased age, duration of illness, depression, degree of functional impairment, and fatigue. Several different types of pain are found in patients with MS, including extremity pain, trigeminal neuralgia, Lhermitte's sign, painful tonic spasms, back pain, and headache. Putative mechanisms of pain in patients with MS are discussed, and a classification of pain in MS is proposed. Few randomized clinical trials of treatments for MS pain have been conducted, and the limitations of current knowledge regarding approaches for treating MS pain are discussed. Suggestions for future studies that would increase understanding of the natural history, mechanisms, and treatment of pain in patients with MS are presented.

Objectives: Pain can persist long after the resolution of herpes zoster, but little is known regarding its health care costs. The objective of this study was to determine the health care expenditures associated with persisting pain following herpes zoster by comparing expenditures for patients with postherpetic neuralgia or subacute herpetic neuralgia with a control group without these conditions., Methods: Health care expenditures attributable to persisting pain in herpes zoster patients were calculated using Thomson-Medstat's MarketScan databases to examine commercial, Medicare, and Medicaid claims for inpatient and outpatient services and outpatient prescription drugs., Results: Excess annualized costs were $4,917 for commercially insured patients, $2,696 for Medicare patients, and $9,310 for Medicaid patients., Conclusions: The substantial health care costs associated with persisting pain in herpes zoster have important public health implications given evidence that the incidence of herpes zoster is increasing and that the population is aging in the United States. The results provide a basis for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of existing treatments and emerging prevention strategies.

Objectives: To determine the healthcare costs of acute and chronic pain associated with herpes zoster., Design: Retrospective cohort analysis., Setting: Inpatient and outpatient care., Participants: Patients were selected from Medicare, commercial insurance, and Medicaid claims databases if they had a diagnosis of herpes zoster or postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) or were prescribed analgesics after a diagnosis of herpes zoster (possible PHN) and were matched to controls for demographic and clinical factors using propensity scores., Measurements: One-year excess healthcare expenditures attributable to herpes zoster pain or PHN were calculated for inpatient, outpatient, and prescription drug services., Results: For the Medicare cohort, the average excess cost per patient was $1,300 in the year after a diagnosis of herpes zoster with 30 days or fewer of analgesic use and ranged from $2,200 to $2,300 per patient with PHN or possible PHN. Patients with possible PHN were 53% more prevalent than patients with PHN in the Medicare cohort and accounted for half of all excess expenditures. Findings were similar in the younger cohorts with commercial insurance and Medicaid except that costs attributable to PHN and possible PHN were higher, and patients with possible PHN were three to five times as prevalent as patients with PHN., Conclusion: Healthcare costs associated with PHN were substantially greater than those associated with herpes zoster pain that resolved within 30 days. The data suggest that as many as 80% of patients with PHN may not be diagnosed with PHN and that these patients account for at least half of PHN expenditures.

Objective: We observed that parenteral morphine is routinely prescribed in doses that are quite low in relation to doses of alternative parenteral opioids and in comparison with published effective doses and guidelines. The present study was undertaken to determine: 1) whether different parenteral opioids are dosed equivalently; 2) which patient factors affect equianalgesic dose; and 3) which patient factors affect opioid choice., Design: At a 750-bed tertiary care, teaching hospital in Rochester, NY, patients on the medical and surgical floors and in the emergency department who received one or more doses of parenteral morphine, hydromorphone, or meperidine were identified using computerized pharmacy records. A detailed chart review was performed for each patient, recording a variety of patient variables, which were then correlated separately with opioid dose and choice., Results: Of the 293 patients treated with boluses of a parenteral opioid, 75% received morphine at a median dose of only 2 mg. Patients prescribed hydromorphone or meperidine received median equianalgesic doses that were 6.7 and 3.4 times higher, respectively. A prescriber's choice of opioid affected the equianalgesic dose more significantly than any of the patient variables studied, including active home opioid use., Conclusions: At our institution, parenteral morphine boluses are routinely given at relatively low doses compared with: 1) other opioids; 2) patient-controlled analgesic dosing; 3) usual doses required for analgesia from previous studies; and 4) a historical control in the same hospital. The reasons for this pattern are largely unexplained by patient variables. Inadequate bolus dosing of morphine may be a barrier to appropriate patient analgesia.