Search

Aims Opioid misuse and overuse have contributed to a widespread overdose crisis and many patients and physicians are considering medical cannabis to support opioid tapering and chronic pain control. Using a five‐step modified Delphi process, we aimed to develop consensus‐based recommendations on: 1) when and how to safely initiate and titrate cannabinoids in the presence of opioids, 2) when and how to safely taper opioids in the presence of cannabinoids and 3) how to monitor patients and evaluate outcomes when treating with opioids and cannabinoids. Results In patients with chronic pain taking opioids not reaching treatment goals, there was consensus that cannabinoids may be considered for patients experiencing or displaying opioid‐related complications, despite psychological or physical interventions. There was consensus observed to initiate with a cannabidiol (CBD)‐predominant oral extract in the daytime and consider adding tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). When adding THC, start with 0.5‐3 mg, and increase by 1‐2 mg once or twice weekly up to 30‐40 mg/day. Initiate opioid tapering when the patient reports a minor/major improvement in function, seeks less as‐needed medication to control pain and/or the cannabis dose has been optimised. The opioid tapering schedule may be 5%–10% of the morphine equivalent dose (MED) every 1 to 4 weeks. Clinical success could be defined by an improvement in function/quality of life, a ≥30% reduction in pain intensity, a ≥25% reduction in opioid dose, a reduction in opioid dose to

IntroductionApproximately one-third of adults with chronic pain also report clinically relevant levels of depression. Internet-delivered psychological therapies such as Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (iCBT) and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (iACT) have been developed to overcome barriers of access to services and ensure the timely delivery of care. The objective of this trial is to collect data on feasibility, acceptability and range of probable effect sizes for iCBT and iACT interventions tailored towards the treatment of depression and chronic pain using a randomised controlled patient-preference design.Methods and analysisCommunity dwelling adults with chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) and major depression will be recruited from pain clinics and primary care providers in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. The study is a randomised controlled patient-preference trial. Eligible patients will be randomly assigned to a ‘preference’ or ‘no-preference’ arm during the first step of randomisation and to intervention or control in the second step of randomisation. Two interventions (ie, iCBT or iACT) will be evaluated relative to attention control. iCBT and iACT involve the completion of 7-weekly online modules augmented with one session of motivational enhancement and weekly therapy sessions. Primary outcomes include (1) feasibility and acceptability parameters and (2) change in symptoms of depression. Secondary outcomes include pain, physical function, emotional function and quality of life. We will recruit 60 participants and examine the range of effect sizes obtained from the trial but will not conduct significance testing as per recommendations for behavioural trial development.Ethics and disseminationEthics was approved by the provincial Health Research Ethics Board. Dissemination of results will be published in a peer-reviewed academic journal and presented at scientific conferences.Trial registration numberNCT04009135.

Objective This review quantified prescriber adherence to opioid prescribing guidelines for chronic noncancer pain (CNCP). Method We searched CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library, and the Joanna Briggs Institute EBP Database from inception until June 3, 2019. Studies that focused on provider adherence to opioids guidelines for CNCP in North America were eligible. Four reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed study quality. Results Thirty-eight studies were eligible, comprising 17 cross-sectional studies (n = 11,835 providers) and 22 chart reviews (n = 22,512 patients). Survey data indicated that adherence was 49% (95% CI [40, 59]) for treatment agreements, 33% (95% CI [19%, 47%]) for urine drug testing, 48% (95% CI [26%, 71%]) for consultation with drug monitoring program, 57% (95% CI [35%, 79%]) for assessing risk of aberrant medication-taking behavior, and 61% (95% CI [35%, 87%]) for mental health screening. Chart review data indicated that the proportion of patients with documentation was 40% (95% CI [29, 51]) for treatment agreements, 41% (95% CI [32%, 50%]) for urine drug testing, 40% (95% CI [2%, 78%]) for consultation with drug monitoring program, 41% (95% CI [20%, 64%]) for assessing risk of aberrant medication-taking behavior, and 22% (95% CI [9%, 33%]) for mental health screening. Year of publication, practice guideline referenced, and risk of bias explained significant heterogeneity. No study evaluated whether nonadherence to recommendations reflected well-justified deviations to care. Conclusions Adherence to guideline recommendations for opioids for CNCP is low. It is unclear whether nonadherence reflects thoughtful deviations in care. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

This study is a systematic review of interventions to improve adherence to guideline recommendations for prescribing opioids for chronic noncancer pain.Investigators searched CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library, and Joanna Briggs Institute Evid Based Pract database from inception until June 3, 2019. Interventional studies to improve adherence to recommendations made by opioid guidelines for chronic noncancer pain in North America were eligible if outcomes included adherence to guideline recommendations or change in quantity of opioids prescribed. Data were extracted independently and in duplicate. Quantitative synthesis was performed using random effects meta-analysis. Confidence in evidence was determined using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation.A total of 20 studies (8 controlled and 12 prospective cohort) involving 1,491 providers and 72 clinics met inclusion. Interventions included education, audit and feedback, interprofessional support, shared decision making, and multifaceted strategies. Multifaceted interventions improved the use of urine drug testing (n=2, or =2.31, 95% CI=1.53, 3.49, z=3.98, p0.01; high-certainty evidence), treatment agreements (n=2, or =1.96, 95% CI=1.47, 2.61, z=4.56, p0.01; moderate-certainty evidence), and mental health screening (n=2, 2.57-fold, 95% CI=1.56, 4.24, z=2.32, p=0.02; low-certainty evidence) when prescribing opioids for chronic noncancer pain. Very low-certainty evidence suggests that several interventions improved the use of treatment agreements, urine drug testing, and prescription drug monitoring programs.Mostly very low-certainty evidence supports a number of interventions for improving adherence to risk management strategies when prescribing opioids for chronic noncancer pain; however, the effect on patient important outcomes (e.g., overdose, addiction, death) is uncertain.

Background Evidence from diverse areas of medicine (e.g., cardiovascular disease, diabetes) indicates that healthcare providers (HCPs) often do not adhere to clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) despite a clear indication to implement recommendations—a phenomenon commonly termed clinical inertia. There are a variety of reasons for clinical inertia, but HCP-related factors (e.g., knowledge, motivation, agreement with guidelines) are the most salient and amenable to intervention aimed to improve adherence. CPGs have been developed to support the safe and effective prescription of opioid medication for the management of chronic non-cancer pain. The extent of physician uptake and adherence to such guidelines is not yet well understood. The purpose of this review is to synthesize the published evidence about knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and practices that HCPs hold regarding the prescription of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain. Methods An experienced information specialist will perform searches of CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO bibliographic databases. The Cochrane library, PROSPERO, and the Joanna Briggs Institute will be searched for systematic reviews. Searches will be performed from inception to the present. Quantitative and qualitative study designs that report on HCP knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, or practices in North America will be eligible for inclusion. Studies reporting on interventions to improve HCP adherence to opioid prescribing CPGs will also be eligible for inclusion. Two trained graduate-level research assistants will independently screen articles for inclusion, perform data extraction, and perform risk of bias and quality assessment using recommended tools. Confidence in qualitative evidence will be evaluated using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation-Confidence in the Evidence from Qualitative Reviews (GRADE-CERQual) approach. Confidence in quantitative evidence will be assessed using the GRADE approach. Discussion The ultimate goal of this work is to support interventions aiming to optimize opioid prescribing practices in order to prevent opioid-related morbidity and mortality without restricting a HCP’s ability to select the most appropriate treatment for an individual patient. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42018091640. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-018-0858-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.