Search

Introduction Millions of persons with chronic pain across North America and Europe use opioids. While the immunosuppressive properties of opioids are associated with risks of infections, these outcomes could be mitigated through careful patient selection and monitoring practices when appropriate. It is important to recognise that some patients do benefit from a carefully tailored opioid therapy. Enough primary studies have been published to date regarding the role of opioids in potential immunosuppression presenting as an increased rate of infection acquisition, infectious complications and mortality. There is thus a critical need for a consensus in this area.Methods and analysis The methodology is based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement, the MOOSE Guidelines for Meta-Analyses and Systematic Reviews of Observational Studies and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We plan to systematically search Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EMB Review, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Google Scholar databases from their inception date to December 2023. Full-text primary studies that report measurable outcomes in adults with chronic pain, all routes of opioid use, all types of infections and all settings will be included. We will identify a scope of reported infections and the evidence on the association of opioid use (including specific opioid, dosage, formulation and duration of use) with the risk of negative infectious outcomes. Opioid use-associated outcomes, comparing opioid use with another opioid or a non-opioid medication, will be reported. The meta-analysis will incorporate individual risk factors. If data are insufficient, the results will be synthesised narratively. Publication bias and confounding evaluation will be performed. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework will be used.Ethics and dissemination Approval for the use of published data is not required. The results will be published, presented at conferences and discussed in deliberative dialogue groups.PROSPERO registration number CRD42023402812.

Abstract Background To combat the opioid crisis, interventions targeting the opioid prescribing behaviour of physicians involved in the management of patients with chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) have been introduced in clinical settings. An integrative synthesis of systematic review evidence is required to better understand the effects of these interventions. Our objective was to synthesize the systematic review evidence on the effect of interventions targeting the behaviours of physician opioid prescribers for CNCP among adults on patient and population health and prescriber behaviour. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycInfo via Ovid; the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; and Epistemonikos. We included systematic reviews that evaluate any type of intervention aimed at impacting opioid prescriber behaviour for adult CNCP in an outpatient setting. Results We identified three full texts for our review that contained 68 unique primary studies. The main interventions we evaluated were structured prescriber education (one review) and prescription drug monitoring programmes (PDMPs) (two reviews). Due to the paucity of data available, we could not determine with certainty that education interventions improved outcomes in deprescribing. There is some evidence that PDMPs decrease the number of adverse opioid-related events, increase communication among healthcare workers and patients, modify healthcare practitioners’ approach towards their opioid prescribed patients, and offer more chances for education and counselling. Conclusions Our overview explores the possibility of PDMPs as an opioid deprescribing intervention and highlights the need for more high-quality primary research on this topic.

Abstract Background The North American opioid crisis is driven by opioid-related mortality and morbidity, including opioid use-associated infections (OUAIs), resulting in a substantial burden for society. Users of legal and illegal opioids are at an increased risk of OUAIs compared to individuals not using opioids. As reported for hepatitis C virus (HCV), human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), bacterial, fungal, and other infections, OUAIs transmission and acquisition risks may be modifiable. Several systematic reviews (SRs) synthetized data regarding interventions to prevent infections in persons using drugs (e.g., opioid substitution therapy, needle and syringes exchange programs, psycho-social interventions); however, their conclusions varied. Therefore, SR of published SRs is needed to synthesize the highest level of evidence on the scope and effectiveness of interventions to prevent OUAIs in people using opioids legally or illegally. Methods We will comprehensively search for SRs in the PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Epistemonikos, and Google Scholar databases from inception to November 2020. Data selection and extraction for each SR will be performed independently by two researchers, with disagreements resolved by consensus. All SRs regarding interventions with evaluated effectiveness to prevent OUAI in legal and/or illegal opioid users will be eligible. Risk of bias assessment will be performed using the AMSTAR2 tool. The results will be qualitatively synthesized, and a typology of interventions’ effectiveness with a statement on the strength of evidence for each category will be created. Discussion Our pilot search of PubMed resulted in 379 SRs analyzing the effectiveness of interventions to prevent HCV and HIV in persons who inject different types of drugs, including opioids. Of these 379 SRs, 8 evaluated primary studies where participants used opioids and would therefore be eligible for inclusion. The search results thus justify the application of SR of SRs approach. Comprehensive data on the scope and effectiveness of existing interventions to prevent OUAIs will help policy-makers to plan and implement preventive interventions and will assist clinicians in the guidance for their patients using opioids. Systematic review registration Registered in PROSPERO on 30 July 2020 ( #195929 ).

Adolescents and young adults (AYAs) represent a unique population with distinct psycho-social risks and care needs. About 10% of AYAs live with chronic pain (CP) and transition to adult pain care between 16 and 25 years of age. These transitions in care happen simultaneously with other bio-psycho-social changes and require flexible multi-disciplinary support models. As it stands, transitional pain care appears suboptimal, fragmented, and opportunistic in Quebec (Canada). The objective of this Brief Report is, therefore, to present our study findings and propose a multi-disciplinary transitional framework vision applicable to AYAs living with CP. Data were collected using a sequential-consensual qualitative design with a longitudinal participatory component. The consecutive stages of this work included an exploratory stage, semi-structured interviews with primary care providers, and inter-disciplinary deliberative stakeholder consultation groups. The deductive inductive thematic approach and the three-level Health Care Transition Research Consortium's theoretical framework were used to analyze the data. A representative group of stakeholders discussed findings from the first two steps, made fifteen actionable recommendations and formulated their vision of a transitional pain care model that can be further adapted in other settings. The study results present important insights into various psycho-social factors associated with transitional pain care for AYAs.

Introduction Interventions targeting behaviours of physician prescribers of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain have been introduced to combat the opioid crisis. Systematic reviews have evaluated effects of specific interventions (eg, prescriber education, prescription drug monitoring programmes) on patient and population health outcomes and prescriber behaviour. Integration of findings across intervention types is needed to better understand the effects of prescriber-targeted interventions.Methods and analysis We will conduct an overview of systematic reviews. Eligible systematic reviews will include primary studies that evaluated any intervention targeting the behaviours of physician prescribers of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain in an outpatient or mixed setting, compared with no intervention, usual practice or another active or control intervention. Eligible outcomes will pertain to the intervention effect on patient and population health or opioid prescribing behaviour. We will search MEDLINE, Embase and PsycInfo via Ovid; the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Epistemonikos from inception. We will also hand search reference lists for additional publications. Screening and data extraction will be conducted independently by two reviewers, with disagreements resolved by consensus or consultation with a third reviewer. The risk of bias of included systematic reviews will be assessed in duplicate by two reviewers using the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews tool. Results will be synthesised narratively by intervention type and grouped by outcome. To assist with result interpretation, outcomes will be labelled as intended or unintended according to intervention objectives, and as positive, negative, evidence of no effect or inconclusive evidence according to effect on the population (for patient and population health outcomes) or intervention objectives (for prescriber outcomes).Ethics and dissemination As the proposed study will use published data, ethics approval is not required. Dissemination of results will be achieved through publication of a manuscript in a peer-reviewed journal and conference presentations.PROSPERO registration number CRD42020156815.

BackgroundThe North American opioid crisis is marked by high opioid-related mortality and morbidity, including opioid use-associated infections (OUAIs). Users of pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical opioids are at an increased risk of acquiring hepatitis C (HCV), human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), and other infections. No high-level evidence, however, has been synthesized regarding effectiveness of interventions to prevent OUAIs in legal, and illegal/mixed opioid users. The aim of the study is to synthesize available systematic review (SR)–level evidence on the scope and effectiveness of interventions to prevent OUAIs among opioid users.MethodsA SR of SRs approach was applied. We searched PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Epistemonikos and Google Scholar from inception to September 2020. Data selection and extraction were performed independently by three researchers. Risk of bias and quality of evidence were assessed using the AMSTAR2 tool. Results were narratively synthesized. Strength of evidence for each category was reported.ResultsEleven of twelve identified SRs included interventions to prevent HCV/HIV transmission in persons who inject drugs (PWID), including opioids. One SR evaluated interventions to prevent recurrent infectious endocarditis. There was sufficient and tentative SR of SRs-level evidence for the effectiveness of opioid substitution therapy (OST) in preventing HIV and HCV, respectively. We found tentative evidence to support effectiveness of needle/syringe exchange programs (NSP) in HIV prevention, and sufficient evidence to support effectiveness of the combined OST and NSP in HCV prevention. There was insufficient SR-level evidence to support or discount effectiveness of other interventions to prevent OUAIs. No SR focused on non-PWID populations.ConclusionSR-level evidence supports the use of OST, NSP, and combined interventions for the reduction of HCV and HIV transmission in PWID. More research on prevention of other OUAIs and on prevention of OUAIs in non-PWID populations is urgently needed.Systematic Review Registration:Registered in PROSPERO on July 30, 2020. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=195929, identifier: #195929.

Abstract Background When patients have been on opioid therapy for more than 90 days, more than half of them continue using opioids years later. Knowing that long-term opioid consumption could lead to harmful side effects including misuse, abuse, and addiction, it is important to understand the risks of transitioning to prolonged opioid therapy to reduce its occurrence. Perioperative and trauma contexts are ideal models commonly used to study such transition. Long-term use of opioids might be associated with transformation of acute pain to chronic, which might be an example of a risk factor. The objectives of this knowledge synthesis are to examine the relative frequency and the risk factors for transitioning to long-term opioid therapy among patients who have undergone a surgical procedure or experienced a trauma. Methods The proposed study methodology is based on Preferred ReportIng Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) statements on the conduct of systematic review and meta-analysis, the MOOSE Guidelines for Meta-Analyses and Systematic Reviews of Observational Studies, and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Review of Interventions. A systematic literature search will include multiple databases: Cochrane Central, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINHAL, PubMed, and the grey literature. We will identify studies related to opioid use beyond acute/subacute pain control after surgery or trauma. Two of the reviewers will screen all retrieved articles for eligibility and data extraction then critically appraise all identified studies. We will compile a narrative synthesis of all results and conduct a meta-analysis when feasible. As available data permits, we will perform a subgroup analysis of vulnerable populations. Discussion This systematic review will contribute to the prevention and harm reduction strategies associated with prescription opioids by identifying risk factors leading to the unwarranted long-term opioid therapy. The identification of common risk factors for long-term opioid therapy will help to orient further research on pain management as well as offer key therapeutic targets for the development of strategies to prevent prolonged opioid use. Systematic review registration This protocol was registered in PROSPERO on March 2, 2018; registration number CRD42012018089907.

Introduction/Aim: The objectives of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to examine the relative frequency and risk factors (patient, surgical, medical, clinical) for prolonged opioid therapy among surgical and trauma patients. Methods: Studies published in English and French between 1998 and April 2018 examining risk factors for prolonged (3–6 months) or chronic (>6 months) opioid use after surgery/trauma were included. Literature search: seven databases were queried, empirical studies were identified via direct and back citation search, grey literature was also included. A minimum of two independent reviewers assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed studies quality. Results: Thirty-five out of 10,003 screened articles were included. The median relative frequency of prolonged (50.9%) and chronic (58.5%) opioid therapy among pre-event patients already on opioid therapy was much higher compared to pre-event opioid naïve patients (4.1% and 2.6%, respectively). Tobacco use, depressive disorder and antidepressants use were significant risk factors for prolonged and/or chronic opioid therapy among pre-event opioid naïve patients. Tobacco use, depressive disorder and history of migraines were risk factors for prolonged opioid therapy among pre-event opioid-treated patients. Discussion/Conclusions: Prevention initiatives to reduce the risk of prolonged opioid therapy after surgery or trauma should target specific health behaviors and psychiatric disorders; these interventions should be tailored based on patients’ pre-event opioid status.

Background. Opioids contribute to more than 60 000 deaths annually in North America. While the expansion of overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND) programs has been recommended in response to the opioid crisis, their effectiveness remains unclear. Objectives. To conduct an umbrella review of systematic reviews to provide a broad-based conceptual scheme of the effect and feasibility of OEND and to identify areas for possible optimization. Search Methods. We conducted the umbrella review of systematic reviews by searching PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Epistemonikos, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the reference lists of relevant articles. Briefly, an academic librarian used a 2-concept search, which included opioid subject headings and relevant keywords with a modified PubMed systematic review filter. Selection Criteria. Eligible systematic reviews described comprehensive search strategies and inclusion and exclusion criteria, evaluated the quality or risk of bias of included studies, were published in English or French, and reported data relevant to either the safety or effectiveness of OEND programs, or optimal strategies for the management of opioid overdose with naloxone in out-of-hospital settings. Data Collection and Analysis. Two reviewers independently extracted study characteristics and the quality of included reviews was assessed in duplicate with AMSTAR-2, a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews. Review quality was rated critically low, low, moderate, or high based on 7 domains: protocol registration, literature search adequacy, exclusion criteria, risk of bias assessment, meta-analytical methods, result interpretation, and presence of publication bias. Summary tables were constructed, and confidence ratings were provided for each outcome by using a previously modified version of the Royal College of General Practitioners' clinical guidelines. Main Results. Six systematic reviews containing 87 unique studies were included. We found that OEND programs produce long-term knowledge improvement regarding opioid overdose, improve participants' attitudes toward naloxone, provide sufficient training for participants to safely and effectively manage overdoses, and effectively reduce opioid-related mortality. High-concentration intranasal naloxone (> 2 mg/mL) was as effective as intramuscular naloxone at the same dose, whereas lower-concentration intranasal naloxone was less effective. Evidence was limited for other naloxone formulations, as well as the need for hospital transport after overdose reversal. The preponderance of evidence pertained persons who use heroin. Author's Conclusions. Evidence suggests that OEND programs are effective for reducing opioid-related mortality; however, additional high-quality research is required to optimize program delivery. Public Health Implications. Community-based OEND programs should be implemented widely in high-risk populations.