Search

BackgroundPeople with low back pain (LBP) in the community often do not receive evidence-based advice and management. Community pharmacists can play an important role in supporting people with LBP as pharmacists are easily accessible to provide first-line care. However, previous research suggests that pharmacists may not consistently deliver advice that is concordant with guideline recommendations and may demonstrate difficulty determining which patients require prompt medical review. A clinical decision support system (CDSS) may enhance first-line care of LBP, but none exists to support the community pharmacist–client consultation. ObjectiveThis study aimed to develop a CDSS to guide first-line care of LBP in the community pharmacy setting and to evaluate the pharmacist-reported usability and acceptance of the prototype system. MethodsA cross-platform Web app for the Apple iPad was developed in conjunction with academic and clinical experts using an iterative user-centered design process during interface design, clinical reasoning, program development, and evaluation. The CDSS was evaluated via one-to-one user-testing with 5 community pharmacists (5 case vignettes each). Data were collected via video recording, screen capture, survey instrument (system usability scale), and direct observation. ResultsPharmacists’ agreement with CDSS-generated self-care recommendations was 90% (18/20), with medicines recommendations was 100% (25/25), and with referral advice was 88% (22/25; total 70 recommendations). Pharmacists expressed uncertainty when screening for serious pathology in 40% (10/25) of cases. Pharmacists requested more direction from the CDSS in relation to automated prompts for user input and page navigation. Overall system usability was rated as excellent (mean score 92/100, SD 6.5; 90th percentile compared with similar systems), with acceptance rated as good to excellent. ConclusionsA novel CDSS (high-fidelity prototype) to enhance pharmacist care of LBP was developed, underpinned by clinical practice guidelines and informed by a multidisciplinary team of experts. User-testing revealed a high level of usability and acceptance of the prototype system, with suggestions to improve interface prompts and information delivery. The small study sample limits the generalizability of the findings but offers important insights to inform the next stage of system development.

Pain is one of the most burdensome symptoms in people with cancer, and opioid analgesics are considered the mainstay of cancer pain management. For this review, the authors evaluated the efficacy and toxicities of opioid analgesics compared with placebo, other opioids, nonopioid analgesics, and nonpharmacologic treatments for background cancer pain (continuous and relatively constant pain present at rest), and breakthrough cancer pain (transient exacerbation of pain despite stable and adequately controlled background pain). They found a paucity of placebo‐controlled trials for background cancer pain, although tapentadol or codeine may be more efficacious than placebo (moderate‐certainty to low‐certainty evidence). Nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs including aspirin, piroxicam, diclofenac, ketorolac, and the antidepressant medicine imipramine, may be at least as efficacious as opioids for moderate‐to‐severe background cancer pain. For breakthrough cancer pain, oral transmucosal, buccal, sublingual, or intranasal fentanyl preparations were identified as more efficacious than placebo but were more commonly associated with toxicities, including constipation and nausea. Despite being recommended worldwide for the treatment of cancer pain, morphine was generally not superior to other opioids, nor did it have a more favorable toxicity profile. The interpretation of study results, however, was complicated by the heterogeneity in the study populations evaluated. Given the limited quality and quantity of research, there is a need to reappraise the clinical utility of opioids in people with cancer pain, particularly those who are not at the end of life, and to further explore the effects of opioids on immune system function and quality of life in these individuals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The increasing number of gabapentinoid (pregabalin and gabapentin) harms, including deaths observed across countries is concerning to health‐care professionals and policy makers. However, it is unclear if the public shares these concerns. This study aimed to describe posts related to gabapentinoids, conduct a content analysis to identify common themes and describe adverse events or symptoms. Methods: Keywords of 'pregabalin' or 'Lyrica' or 'gabapentin' or 'Neurontin' were used to search for related tweets posted by people in the community between 8 March and 7 May 2021. Eligible tweets included a keyword in the post. We extracted de‐identified data which included descriptive data of the total number of posts over time; and data on individual tweets including date, number of re‐tweets and post content. Data were exported separately for pregabalin‐ and gabapentin‐related tweets. A 20% random sample was used for the thematic analysis. Results: There were 2931 pregabalin‐related tweets and 2736 gabapentin‐related tweets. Thematic analysis revealed three themes (sharing positive experiences and benefits of taking gabapentinoids, people voicing their negative experiences, and people seeking opinions and sharing information). Positive experiences of gabapentinoids were related to sharing stories and giving advice. This was contrasted to negative experiences including ineffectiveness, withdrawals, side effects and frustration related to cost and insurance coverage. Brain fog was the most common adverse symptom reported. Gabapentinoid‐related deaths were only mentioned in three tweets. Discussion: The increasing public health concern of gabapentinoid‐related deaths was not translated to Twitter discussions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The emerging issue of rising gabapentinoid misuse is being recognized alongside the lack of current evidence supporting the safe and effective deprescribing of gabapentinoids. This scoping review aimed to assess the extent and nature of gabapentinoid deprescribing interventions in adults, either in reducing dosages, or prescribing of, gabapentinoids. Electronic databases were searched on 23 February 2022 without restrictions. Eligible studies included randomized, non‐randomized and observational studies that assessed an intervention aimed at reducing/ceasing the prescription/use of a gabapentinoid in adults for any indication in a clinical setting. The research outcomes investigated the type of intervention, prescribing rates, cessations, patient outcomes and adverse events. Extracted outcome data were categorized as either short (≤3 months), intermediate (>3 but <12 months) or long (≥12 months) term. A narrative synthesis was conducted. The four included studies were conducted in primary and acute care settings. Interventions were of dose‐reducing protocols, education and/or pharmacological‐based approaches. In the randomized trials, gabapentinoid use could be ceased in at least one third of participants. In the two observational trials, gabapentinoid prescribing rates decreased by 9%. Serious adverse events and adverse events specifically related to gabapentinoids were reported in one trial. No study included patient‐focused psychological interventions in the deprescribing process, nor provided any long‐term follow‐up. This review highlights the lack of existing evidence in this area. Due to limited available data, our review was unable to make any firm judgements on the most effective gabapentinoid deprescribing interventions in adults, highlighting the need for more research in this area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Because pharmacological therapies may play an important role in managing musculoskeletal pain, the appropriate use of medicines for common conditions like low back pain (LBP) is critical. New evidence on the effects and safety of paracetamol, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioid analgesics, muscle relaxants, antibiotics, and antidepressants for LBP warrants an updated overview for musculoskeletal clinicians on this topic. CLINICAL QUESTION: How effective and safe are paracetamol, NSAIDs, opioid analgesics, muscle relaxants, antibiotics, and antidepressants compared with placebo for treating LBP? KEY RESULTS: For acute LBP (<12 weeks), muscle relaxants and NSAIDs may be superior to placebo for reducing pain, but the effects of opioids, antibiotics, and antidepressants are unknown. Paracetamol provides no additional benefit for acute LBP. For chronic LBP (>12 weeks), NSAIDs, antidepressants, and opioids may be superior to placebo for reducing pain, but opioids have an established profile of harms. Antibiotics may also reduce pain for people with chronic LBP with Modic type 1 changes, although the risks may outweigh their benefits. The effects of paracetamol and muscle relaxants for chronic LBP were unclear. CLINICAL APPLICATION: NSAIDs may have a role in managing acute and chronic LBP, with cautious use in people who may be at greater risk of experiencing adverse events. Paracetamol, opioid analgesics, antibiotics, muscle relaxants, and antidepressants should only be prescribed following a discussion between the treating clinician and the patient, considering the risks and possible benefits, and after or in conjunction with recommended nonpharmacological strategies for improving LBP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]