Pain

The Centers for Disease Controls and Prevention has released a draft update of its current Clinical Practice Guidelines for Prescribing Opioids for pain management and is asking for public comment before moving forward.

The last guidance on this topic was released in 2016 and, among other things, noted that clinicians should be cautious when considering increasing dosage of opioids to 50 or more morphine milligram equivalents (MME)/day and should avoid increasing to a dose of 90 or more MME/day. It also noted that 3 days or less “will often be sufficient” regarding the quantity of lowest effective dose of immediate-release opioids to be prescribed for acute pain – and that more than 7 days “will rarely be needed.”

In the new report from the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), those dose limits have been replaced with the suggestion that clinicians use their best judgement – albeit still urging conservative use and even the possibility of nonopioid treatments.

The updated recommendations are now open for public comment via the Federal Register’s website through April 11.

“This comment period provides another critical opportunity for diverse audiences to offer their perspective on the draft clinical practice guideline,” Christopher M. Jones, PharmD, DrPH, acting director for the NCIPC, said in a release.

“We want to hear many voices from the public, including people living with pain and health care providers who help their patients manage pain,” Dr. Jones added.

Outpatient recommendations

The CDC noted that the updated guidance provides “evidence-based recommendations” for treatment of adults with acute, subacute, or chronic pain. It does not include guidance for managing pain related to sickle cell disease, cancer, or palliative care.

It is aimed at primary care clinicians and others who manage pain in an outpatient setting, including in dental and postsurgical practices and for those discharging patients from emergency departments. It does not apply to inpatient care.

The draft guidance includes 12 recommendations focused on four key areas:

• Helping clinicians determine whether or not to initiate opioid treatment for pain
• Opioid selection and dosage
• Duration of use and follow-up
• Assessing risk and addressing potential harms from use

The overall aim “is to ensure people have access to safe, accessible, and effective pain management that improves their function and quality of life while illuminating and reducing risks associated with prescription opioids and ultimately reducing the consequences of prescription opioid misuse and overdose,” the CDC notes.

In addition, the guidance itself “is intended to be a clinical tool to improve communication between providers and patients and empower them to make informed, patient-centered decisions,” the agency said in a press release.

It added that the new recommendations “are not intended to be applied as inflexible standards of care.” Rather, it is intended as a guide to support health care providers in their clinical decisionmaking as they provide individualized patient care.

Patients, caregivers, and providers are invited to submit comments over the next 60 days through the Federal Register docket.

“It is vitally important to CDC that we receive, process, and understand public feedback during the guideline update process,” the agency noted.

“The ultimate goal of this clinical practice guideline is to help people set and achieve personal goals to reduce their pain and improve their function and quality of life. Getting feedback from the public is essential to achieving this goal,” Dr. Jones said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Disease Controls and Prevention has released a draft update of its current Clinical Practice Guidelines for Prescribing Opioids for pain management and is asking for public comment before moving forward.

The last guidance on this topic was released in 2016 and, among other things, noted that clinicians should be cautious when considering increasing dosage of opioids to 50 or more morphine milligram equivalents (MME)/day and should avoid increasing to a dose of 90 or more MME/day. It also noted that 3 days or less “will often be sufficient” regarding the quantity of lowest effective dose of immediate-release opioids to be prescribed for acute pain – and that more than 7 days “will rarely be needed.”

In the new report from the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), those dose limits have been replaced with the suggestion that clinicians use their best judgement – albeit still urging conservative use and even the possibility of nonopioid treatments.

The updated recommendations are now open for public comment via the Federal Register’s website through April 11.

“This comment period provides another critical opportunity for diverse audiences to offer their perspective on the draft clinical practice guideline,” Christopher M. Jones, PharmD, DrPH, acting director for the NCIPC, said in a release.

“We want to hear many voices from the public, including people living with pain and health care providers who help their patients manage pain,” Dr. Jones added.

Outpatient recommendations

The CDC noted that the updated guidance provides “evidence-based recommendations” for treatment of adults with acute, subacute, or chronic pain. It does not include guidance for managing pain related to sickle cell disease, cancer, or palliative care.

It is aimed at primary care clinicians and others who manage pain in an outpatient setting, including in dental and postsurgical practices and for those discharging patients from emergency departments. It does not apply to inpatient care.

The draft guidance includes 12 recommendations focused on four key areas:

• Helping clinicians determine whether or not to initiate opioid treatment for pain
• Opioid selection and dosage
• Duration of use and follow-up
• Assessing risk and addressing potential harms from use

The overall aim “is to ensure people have access to safe, accessible, and effective pain management that improves their function and quality of life while illuminating and reducing risks associated with prescription opioids and ultimately reducing the consequences of prescription opioid misuse and overdose,” the CDC notes.

In addition, the guidance itself “is intended to be a clinical tool to improve communication between providers and patients and empower them to make informed, patient-centered decisions,” the agency said in a press release.

It added that the new recommendations “are not intended to be applied as inflexible standards of care.” Rather, it is intended as a guide to support health care providers in their clinical decisionmaking as they provide individualized patient care.

Patients, caregivers, and providers are invited to submit comments over the next 60 days through the Federal Register docket.

“It is vitally important to CDC that we receive, process, and understand public feedback during the guideline update process,” the agency noted.

“The ultimate goal of this clinical practice guideline is to help people set and achieve personal goals to reduce their pain and improve their function and quality of life. Getting feedback from the public is essential to achieving this goal,” Dr. Jones said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Disease Controls and Prevention has released a draft update of its current Clinical Practice Guidelines for Prescribing Opioids for pain management and is asking for public comment before moving forward.

The last guidance on this topic was released in 2016 and, among other things, noted that clinicians should be cautious when considering increasing dosage of opioids to 50 or more morphine milligram equivalents (MME)/day and should avoid increasing to a dose of 90 or more MME/day. It also noted that 3 days or less “will often be sufficient” regarding the quantity of lowest effective dose of immediate-release opioids to be prescribed for acute pain – and that more than 7 days “will rarely be needed.”

In the new report from the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), those dose limits have been replaced with the suggestion that clinicians use their best judgement – albeit still urging conservative use and even the possibility of nonopioid treatments.

The updated recommendations are now open for public comment via the Federal Register’s website through April 11.

“This comment period provides another critical opportunity for diverse audiences to offer their perspective on the draft clinical practice guideline,” Christopher M. Jones, PharmD, DrPH, acting director for the NCIPC, said in a release.

“We want to hear many voices from the public, including people living with pain and health care providers who help their patients manage pain,” Dr. Jones added.

Outpatient recommendations

The CDC noted that the updated guidance provides “evidence-based recommendations” for treatment of adults with acute, subacute, or chronic pain. It does not include guidance for managing pain related to sickle cell disease, cancer, or palliative care.

It is aimed at primary care clinicians and others who manage pain in an outpatient setting, including in dental and postsurgical practices and for those discharging patients from emergency departments. It does not apply to inpatient care.

The draft guidance includes 12 recommendations focused on four key areas:

• Helping clinicians determine whether or not to initiate opioid treatment for pain
• Opioid selection and dosage
• Duration of use and follow-up
• Assessing risk and addressing potential harms from use

The overall aim “is to ensure people have access to safe, accessible, and effective pain management that improves their function and quality of life while illuminating and reducing risks associated with prescription opioids and ultimately reducing the consequences of prescription opioid misuse and overdose,” the CDC notes.

In addition, the guidance itself “is intended to be a clinical tool to improve communication between providers and patients and empower them to make informed, patient-centered decisions,” the agency said in a press release.

It added that the new recommendations “are not intended to be applied as inflexible standards of care.” Rather, it is intended as a guide to support health care providers in their clinical decisionmaking as they provide individualized patient care.

Patients, caregivers, and providers are invited to submit comments over the next 60 days through the Federal Register docket.

“It is vitally important to CDC that we receive, process, and understand public feedback during the guideline update process,” the agency noted.

“The ultimate goal of this clinical practice guideline is to help people set and achieve personal goals to reduce their pain and improve their function and quality of life. Getting feedback from the public is essential to achieving this goal,” Dr. Jones said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Most adults in the United States who have chronic pain favor a combination of nondrug and nonopioid approaches to control their pain, which is “encouraging,” new research shows.

A national survey reveals 55% of adults with chronic pain used pain management techniques that did not involve any opioids at all during the prior 3-month period.

However, few participants took advantage of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), which is effective for easing chronic pain, Cornelius Groenewald, MB ChB, department of anesthesiology and pain medicine, University of Seattle, and colleagues write.

The results were published online in a research letter Feb. 7 in JAMA Network Open.

First time for pain questions

An estimated 50.2 million U.S. adults experience chronic pain, according to the 2019 National Health Interview Survey.

The 2019 version of the survey included questions on pain management techniques for the first time. Adults with chronic pain were asked to report on their use of 11 pain management techniques during the previous 3 months.

Among the 31,916 survey respondents, 64% were women; 69% were non-Hispanic White, 13% were Hispanic, and 11% were non-Hispanic Black; 71% were between 18 and 64 years of age, and 29% were 65 and older.

Among the key findings, an estimated 55% of adults with chronic pain used only nonopioid pain management techniques, 11% used both opioids and nonopioid techniques, and 4% used only opioids for chronic pain management; 30% did not report any pain management techniques during the previous 3 months.

Complementary therapies were the most commonly used nonopioid pain management technique (by 35% of adults with chronic pain), followed by physical, occupational, or rehabilitative therapies (19%).

Only about 4% of adults with chronic pain used CBT.

Other techniques used included self-management programs (5%) and chronic pain peer support groups (2%). In addition, 39% of adults with chronic pain reported using other pain approaches not specifically captured in the data set.

Benchmark data

Participants using complementary and psychological or psychotherapeutic interventions were more likely to be younger women with more education, the investigators report.

Adults using physical, occupational, or rehabilitative therapy were more likely to be highly educated older women with medical insurance.

Prescription opioid use for chronic pain was more common among older adults aged 45-64 years vs. those aged 18-44 years (19% vs. 8%).

It was also more common in women than men (17% vs. 13%), in adults with vs. without health insurance (16% vs. 6%), and in those with a high school education or lower, compared with those had more than a high school education (17% vs. 14%).

Prescription opioid use was less common among adults making $100,000 or more annually than in those making less than $35,000 a year (9% vs. 20%).

“While effective for some, opioids prescribed for chronic pain management remain an important determinant of the national opioid crisis,” the investigators write.

The study “provides baseline information on opioid and nonopioid pain management techniques used for chronic pain and serves as a benchmark for evaluating the outcome of health care policies aimed at reducing prescription opioid use,” they add.

The study had no specific funding. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Most adults in the United States who have chronic pain favor a combination of nondrug and nonopioid approaches to control their pain, which is “encouraging,” new research shows.

A national survey reveals 55% of adults with chronic pain used pain management techniques that did not involve any opioids at all during the prior 3-month period.

However, few participants took advantage of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), which is effective for easing chronic pain, Cornelius Groenewald, MB ChB, department of anesthesiology and pain medicine, University of Seattle, and colleagues write.

The results were published online in a research letter Feb. 7 in JAMA Network Open.

First time for pain questions

An estimated 50.2 million U.S. adults experience chronic pain, according to the 2019 National Health Interview Survey.

The 2019 version of the survey included questions on pain management techniques for the first time. Adults with chronic pain were asked to report on their use of 11 pain management techniques during the previous 3 months.

Among the 31,916 survey respondents, 64% were women; 69% were non-Hispanic White, 13% were Hispanic, and 11% were non-Hispanic Black; 71% were between 18 and 64 years of age, and 29% were 65 and older.

Among the key findings, an estimated 55% of adults with chronic pain used only nonopioid pain management techniques, 11% used both opioids and nonopioid techniques, and 4% used only opioids for chronic pain management; 30% did not report any pain management techniques during the previous 3 months.

Complementary therapies were the most commonly used nonopioid pain management technique (by 35% of adults with chronic pain), followed by physical, occupational, or rehabilitative therapies (19%).

Only about 4% of adults with chronic pain used CBT.

Other techniques used included self-management programs (5%) and chronic pain peer support groups (2%). In addition, 39% of adults with chronic pain reported using other pain approaches not specifically captured in the data set.

Benchmark data

Participants using complementary and psychological or psychotherapeutic interventions were more likely to be younger women with more education, the investigators report.

Adults using physical, occupational, or rehabilitative therapy were more likely to be highly educated older women with medical insurance.

Prescription opioid use for chronic pain was more common among older adults aged 45-64 years vs. those aged 18-44 years (19% vs. 8%).

It was also more common in women than men (17% vs. 13%), in adults with vs. without health insurance (16% vs. 6%), and in those with a high school education or lower, compared with those had more than a high school education (17% vs. 14%).

Prescription opioid use was less common among adults making $100,000 or more annually than in those making less than $35,000 a year (9% vs. 20%).

“While effective for some, opioids prescribed for chronic pain management remain an important determinant of the national opioid crisis,” the investigators write.

The study “provides baseline information on opioid and nonopioid pain management techniques used for chronic pain and serves as a benchmark for evaluating the outcome of health care policies aimed at reducing prescription opioid use,” they add.

The study had no specific funding. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Most adults in the United States who have chronic pain favor a combination of nondrug and nonopioid approaches to control their pain, which is “encouraging,” new research shows.

A national survey reveals 55% of adults with chronic pain used pain management techniques that did not involve any opioids at all during the prior 3-month period.

However, few participants took advantage of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), which is effective for easing chronic pain, Cornelius Groenewald, MB ChB, department of anesthesiology and pain medicine, University of Seattle, and colleagues write.

The results were published online in a research letter Feb. 7 in JAMA Network Open.

First time for pain questions

An estimated 50.2 million U.S. adults experience chronic pain, according to the 2019 National Health Interview Survey.

The 2019 version of the survey included questions on pain management techniques for the first time. Adults with chronic pain were asked to report on their use of 11 pain management techniques during the previous 3 months.

Among the 31,916 survey respondents, 64% were women; 69% were non-Hispanic White, 13% were Hispanic, and 11% were non-Hispanic Black; 71% were between 18 and 64 years of age, and 29% were 65 and older.

Among the key findings, an estimated 55% of adults with chronic pain used only nonopioid pain management techniques, 11% used both opioids and nonopioid techniques, and 4% used only opioids for chronic pain management; 30% did not report any pain management techniques during the previous 3 months.

Complementary therapies were the most commonly used nonopioid pain management technique (by 35% of adults with chronic pain), followed by physical, occupational, or rehabilitative therapies (19%).

Only about 4% of adults with chronic pain used CBT.

Other techniques used included self-management programs (5%) and chronic pain peer support groups (2%). In addition, 39% of adults with chronic pain reported using other pain approaches not specifically captured in the data set.

Benchmark data

Participants using complementary and psychological or psychotherapeutic interventions were more likely to be younger women with more education, the investigators report.

Adults using physical, occupational, or rehabilitative therapy were more likely to be highly educated older women with medical insurance.

Prescription opioid use for chronic pain was more common among older adults aged 45-64 years vs. those aged 18-44 years (19% vs. 8%).

It was also more common in women than men (17% vs. 13%), in adults with vs. without health insurance (16% vs. 6%), and in those with a high school education or lower, compared with those had more than a high school education (17% vs. 14%).

Prescription opioid use was less common among adults making $100,000 or more annually than in those making less than $35,000 a year (9% vs. 20%).

“While effective for some, opioids prescribed for chronic pain management remain an important determinant of the national opioid crisis,” the investigators write.

The study “provides baseline information on opioid and nonopioid pain management techniques used for chronic pain and serves as a benchmark for evaluating the outcome of health care policies aimed at reducing prescription opioid use,” they add.

The study had no specific funding. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Without bold and urgent action, including public health policy reform and stricter corporate regulations, an additional 1.2 million people in North America will die of an opioid overdose by 2029, according to an analysis by the Stanford-Lancet Commission.

“Over the past quarter-century, the opioid epidemic has taken nearly 600,000 lives and triggered a cascade of public health catastrophes such as disability, family breakdown, unemployment, and child neglect in North America,” commission chair Keith Humphreys, PhD, said in a news release.

“If no action is taken, by the end of this decade, we are predicting the number of deaths to be twice as high as it has been over the last 20 years,” said Dr. Humphreys, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford (Calif.) University.

The report was published online Feb. 2, 2022, in The Lancet.
 

Blame it on COVID-19?

The COVID-19 pandemic has both overshadowed and exacerbated the opioid crisis in North America, the commission pointed out in their report.

Their analysis suggests that 2020 was the worst year on record for overdose deaths in the United States and Canada in terms of both the total number of deaths and percentage annual increase.

In the United States, opioid overdose deaths increased by 37%, from 51,133 in 2019 to 70,168 in 2020, bringing the total number of deaths since 1999 to 583,000.

In Canada, opioid overdose deaths jumped by 72%, from 3,668 in 2019 to 6,306 in 2020, with a further 3,515 deaths reported in the first 6 months of 2021.

Although the 2020 spikes might be partly caused by the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, a rising trajectory of deaths was evident in both the United States and Canada before the pandemic hit, the Stanford-Lancet Commission said.
 

Profit motives, lack of regulation

The commission blames the opioid epidemic on a lack of adequate regulation and oversight coupled with profit motives of the pharmaceutical and health care industry.

Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health

“To ensure safeguards are in place to curb the opioid addiction epidemic and prevent future ones involving other addictive drugs, we must end the pharmaceutical and health care industry’s undue influence on the government and its unregulated push for opioid use,” commission member Howard Koh, MD, MPH, said in the news release.

“This includes insulating the medical community from pharmaceutical company influence and closing the constantly revolving door between regulators and industry,” said Dr. Koh, with the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston.

In addition to regulation and policy reform, the commission said prevention efforts that focus on treating addiction as a chronic condition are key.

The United States in particular lacks accessible, high-quality, nonstigmatizing, and integrated health and social care services for people experiencing opioid use disorder, the Commission notes.

Addiction-related services must become a permanent feature of health and social care systems in the United States and Canada, in line with established chronic disease management models that are financed and organized as a core public health commitment, the commission said.

“Addiction is an enduring part of population health and should not be treated as a moral failing that needs punishment but as a chronic health condition that requires ongoing treatment and long-term support,” commission member Yasmin Hurd, PhD, director of the Addiction Institute at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in the release.

Investing in young people to reduce the risk of addiction will also be important going forward.

“Preventing drug addiction should be part of a comprehensive public health strategy that starts in childhood and lays the foundation for long-term declines in addiction,” said commission member Chelsea Shover, PhD, with the University of California, Los Angeles.
 

‘Audacious but achievable goal’

The commission calls for a nuanced approach to pain management that prioritizes innovation both in society’s response to drug addiction through policy reform and by supporting the development of new, nonaddictive pain management options.

“Opioids should not be viewed as good or bad, but instead as a class of medications essential to the management of pain. However, opioids also come with serious risks, some of which can be difficult to recognize,” commission member David Juurlink, MD, PhD, said in the release.

“Clinicians should begin learning about responsible pain management prescribing in medical school and continue to learn about it as part of their commitment to continued medical education throughout their careers,” said Dr. Juurlink, with Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto.

Humphreys said ending the opioid epidemic in North America and preventing its global spread is “an audacious but achievable goal” that will require a “dramatic shift in policy and culture where innovation, collaboration, and regulation are encouraged.

“We can save and improve lives by summoning the resources and political will necessary to eliminate the sources of addiction and boldly implement policies that will maximize efforts to treat it,” Dr. Humphreys added.

The study was funded by Stanford University.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Without bold and urgent action, including public health policy reform and stricter corporate regulations, an additional 1.2 million people in North America will die of an opioid overdose by 2029, according to an analysis by the Stanford-Lancet Commission.

“Over the past quarter-century, the opioid epidemic has taken nearly 600,000 lives and triggered a cascade of public health catastrophes such as disability, family breakdown, unemployment, and child neglect in North America,” commission chair Keith Humphreys, PhD, said in a news release.

“If no action is taken, by the end of this decade, we are predicting the number of deaths to be twice as high as it has been over the last 20 years,” said Dr. Humphreys, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford (Calif.) University.

The report was published online Feb. 2, 2022, in The Lancet.
 

Blame it on COVID-19?

The COVID-19 pandemic has both overshadowed and exacerbated the opioid crisis in North America, the commission pointed out in their report.

Their analysis suggests that 2020 was the worst year on record for overdose deaths in the United States and Canada in terms of both the total number of deaths and percentage annual increase.

In the United States, opioid overdose deaths increased by 37%, from 51,133 in 2019 to 70,168 in 2020, bringing the total number of deaths since 1999 to 583,000.

In Canada, opioid overdose deaths jumped by 72%, from 3,668 in 2019 to 6,306 in 2020, with a further 3,515 deaths reported in the first 6 months of 2021.

Although the 2020 spikes might be partly caused by the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, a rising trajectory of deaths was evident in both the United States and Canada before the pandemic hit, the Stanford-Lancet Commission said.
 

Profit motives, lack of regulation

The commission blames the opioid epidemic on a lack of adequate regulation and oversight coupled with profit motives of the pharmaceutical and health care industry.

Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health

“To ensure safeguards are in place to curb the opioid addiction epidemic and prevent future ones involving other addictive drugs, we must end the pharmaceutical and health care industry’s undue influence on the government and its unregulated push for opioid use,” commission member Howard Koh, MD, MPH, said in the news release.

“This includes insulating the medical community from pharmaceutical company influence and closing the constantly revolving door between regulators and industry,” said Dr. Koh, with the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston.

In addition to regulation and policy reform, the commission said prevention efforts that focus on treating addiction as a chronic condition are key.

The United States in particular lacks accessible, high-quality, nonstigmatizing, and integrated health and social care services for people experiencing opioid use disorder, the Commission notes.

Addiction-related services must become a permanent feature of health and social care systems in the United States and Canada, in line with established chronic disease management models that are financed and organized as a core public health commitment, the commission said.

“Addiction is an enduring part of population health and should not be treated as a moral failing that needs punishment but as a chronic health condition that requires ongoing treatment and long-term support,” commission member Yasmin Hurd, PhD, director of the Addiction Institute at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in the release.

Investing in young people to reduce the risk of addiction will also be important going forward.

“Preventing drug addiction should be part of a comprehensive public health strategy that starts in childhood and lays the foundation for long-term declines in addiction,” said commission member Chelsea Shover, PhD, with the University of California, Los Angeles.
 

‘Audacious but achievable goal’

The commission calls for a nuanced approach to pain management that prioritizes innovation both in society’s response to drug addiction through policy reform and by supporting the development of new, nonaddictive pain management options.

“Opioids should not be viewed as good or bad, but instead as a class of medications essential to the management of pain. However, opioids also come with serious risks, some of which can be difficult to recognize,” commission member David Juurlink, MD, PhD, said in the release.

“Clinicians should begin learning about responsible pain management prescribing in medical school and continue to learn about it as part of their commitment to continued medical education throughout their careers,” said Dr. Juurlink, with Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto.

Humphreys said ending the opioid epidemic in North America and preventing its global spread is “an audacious but achievable goal” that will require a “dramatic shift in policy and culture where innovation, collaboration, and regulation are encouraged.

“We can save and improve lives by summoning the resources and political will necessary to eliminate the sources of addiction and boldly implement policies that will maximize efforts to treat it,” Dr. Humphreys added.

The study was funded by Stanford University.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Without bold and urgent action, including public health policy reform and stricter corporate regulations, an additional 1.2 million people in North America will die of an opioid overdose by 2029, according to an analysis by the Stanford-Lancet Commission.

“Over the past quarter-century, the opioid epidemic has taken nearly 600,000 lives and triggered a cascade of public health catastrophes such as disability, family breakdown, unemployment, and child neglect in North America,” commission chair Keith Humphreys, PhD, said in a news release.

“If no action is taken, by the end of this decade, we are predicting the number of deaths to be twice as high as it has been over the last 20 years,” said Dr. Humphreys, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford (Calif.) University.

The report was published online Feb. 2, 2022, in The Lancet.
 

Blame it on COVID-19?

The COVID-19 pandemic has both overshadowed and exacerbated the opioid crisis in North America, the commission pointed out in their report.

Their analysis suggests that 2020 was the worst year on record for overdose deaths in the United States and Canada in terms of both the total number of deaths and percentage annual increase.

In the United States, opioid overdose deaths increased by 37%, from 51,133 in 2019 to 70,168 in 2020, bringing the total number of deaths since 1999 to 583,000.

In Canada, opioid overdose deaths jumped by 72%, from 3,668 in 2019 to 6,306 in 2020, with a further 3,515 deaths reported in the first 6 months of 2021.

Although the 2020 spikes might be partly caused by the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, a rising trajectory of deaths was evident in both the United States and Canada before the pandemic hit, the Stanford-Lancet Commission said.
 

Profit motives, lack of regulation

The commission blames the opioid epidemic on a lack of adequate regulation and oversight coupled with profit motives of the pharmaceutical and health care industry.

Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health

“To ensure safeguards are in place to curb the opioid addiction epidemic and prevent future ones involving other addictive drugs, we must end the pharmaceutical and health care industry’s undue influence on the government and its unregulated push for opioid use,” commission member Howard Koh, MD, MPH, said in the news release.

“This includes insulating the medical community from pharmaceutical company influence and closing the constantly revolving door between regulators and industry,” said Dr. Koh, with the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston.

In addition to regulation and policy reform, the commission said prevention efforts that focus on treating addiction as a chronic condition are key.

The United States in particular lacks accessible, high-quality, nonstigmatizing, and integrated health and social care services for people experiencing opioid use disorder, the Commission notes.

Addiction-related services must become a permanent feature of health and social care systems in the United States and Canada, in line with established chronic disease management models that are financed and organized as a core public health commitment, the commission said.

“Addiction is an enduring part of population health and should not be treated as a moral failing that needs punishment but as a chronic health condition that requires ongoing treatment and long-term support,” commission member Yasmin Hurd, PhD, director of the Addiction Institute at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in the release.

Investing in young people to reduce the risk of addiction will also be important going forward.

“Preventing drug addiction should be part of a comprehensive public health strategy that starts in childhood and lays the foundation for long-term declines in addiction,” said commission member Chelsea Shover, PhD, with the University of California, Los Angeles.
 

‘Audacious but achievable goal’

The commission calls for a nuanced approach to pain management that prioritizes innovation both in society’s response to drug addiction through policy reform and by supporting the development of new, nonaddictive pain management options.

“Opioids should not be viewed as good or bad, but instead as a class of medications essential to the management of pain. However, opioids also come with serious risks, some of which can be difficult to recognize,” commission member David Juurlink, MD, PhD, said in the release.

“Clinicians should begin learning about responsible pain management prescribing in medical school and continue to learn about it as part of their commitment to continued medical education throughout their careers,” said Dr. Juurlink, with Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto.

Humphreys said ending the opioid epidemic in North America and preventing its global spread is “an audacious but achievable goal” that will require a “dramatic shift in policy and culture where innovation, collaboration, and regulation are encouraged.

“We can save and improve lives by summoning the resources and political will necessary to eliminate the sources of addiction and boldly implement policies that will maximize efforts to treat it,” Dr. Humphreys added.

The study was funded by Stanford University.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Most people avoid smartphones when they have a migraine headache, but a noninvasive treatment for episodic migraines may change that.

A smartphone-enabled device, cleared by the Food and Drug Administration in early 2021, uses technology to trick the brain into releasing the neurotransmitters serotonin and noradrenaline that can help ease migraine pain.

Tina Montgomery, 58, has suffered from migraines since childhood and spent years looking for something to help manage them. Doctors consider her a “chronic” sufferer in that she has more than 14 migraines a month (fewer than 14 is considered “episodic”). Prescription antidepressants, anticonvulsants, and botulinum toxin shots as preventive treatments helped a little but not enough.

A few years ago, she found some relief using a new preventive injectable medication that targets a peptide known as CGRP, combined with an oral CGRP rescue medication, ubrogepant (Ubrelvy). However, by early 2021, Ms. Montgomery’s chronic migraines were back as she faced stress from the pandemic and her role as a caregiver for her aging parents.

“I was going through so much medication. I just didn’t feel good taking so much,” she said.

Looking for relief, she read about Nerivio, a wearable migraine treatment device that uses remote electrical neuromodulation (REN). She mentioned the device to her neurologist, and he agreed she might benefit from trying it out. Today, she uses the device whenever she feels a migraine may be imminent, she said.

“It really helps me stave off migraines I feel coming on and the milder ones where I would normally hesitate to use prescription medication because [insurance] limits the number of pills they give you in a month,” she said. “I follow through with the Nerivio treatment and usually find that my migraine doesn’t fully develop or is completely gone, and I don’t get a migraine at all.”
 

Taking it on the arm

The device works by stimulating nerves at the back of the arm right around the triceps. “Those nerve fibers relay information to the brain stem [so it can] work its magic and use the brain’s own natural mechanisms for reducing pain,” said Brian M. Grosberg, MD, director of the Hartford Healthcare Ayer Neuroscience Institute Headache Center, West Hartford, Conn.  

These mechanisms are like a bait-and-switch for the brain, said Britany Klenofsky, MD, assistant professor of neurology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. “You’re trying to stimulate pain somewhere else [on the body] to tell the brain to protect itself and release [the neurotransmitter] serotonin,” she said. “You do this by putting the device on your arm, an area that’s away from the head where the pain is actively occurring, turning the device on, and increasing the stimulation to a nearly painful stimulus.”

This pseudo pain prompts the brain to release serotonin, the feel-good hormone along with norepinephrine and noradrenaline. The device works best when it’s used as soon as a migraine starts, so patients should hook up Nerivio within the first 20-30 minutes of onset of pain, said Dr. Grosberg, who was an investigator on the double-blind treatment study that led to FDA clearance. If patients wait too long, the device may not work.

This is why as soon as Ms. Montgomery feels a migraine aura (there are six types of migraine auras, including visual changes and muscle weakness) that occurs right before a migraine strikes, she puts the device armband on her upper arm and launches its smartphone app. Then she turns on the device for a 45-minute treatment, which begins with what she characterizes as tingling and vibration sensations on her arm. She turns up the intensity of the sensations, which are mild electric currents, until they are well-felt but not painful.

Ms. Montgomery said she can use the device and multitask since there’s no need for her to lie down or sit in a darkened room. And since it is worn on the arm, she can wear it under a shirtsleeve while working or out in public without anyone noticing. She also uses the app’s migraine diary and guided meditation to help reduce the anxiety that often accompanies her migraines.

The device is approved for adolescents and adults and can be used for both episodic and chronic migraines. From an efficacy standpoint, the device provides relief about as well as a commonly used pharmaceutical class of drugs, triptans. About 37% of people with episodic migraine achieved complete freedom from pain 2 hours after their treatment. In addition, about two-thirds of people reported pain relief after 2 hours, which is better success than people find with many prescription and nonprescription drugs.

A separate study looked at acute treatment for chronic migraine sufferers and found nearly 60% of people using the device found relief and 21% said they were pain-free after 2 hours. Almost two-thirds of those who experienced pain relief were pain-free 24 hours after the treatment.
 

Finding the perfect patient

There are other FDA-cleared noninvasive devices to treat migraines. One device, CEFALY, is an external trigeminal nerve stimulation device that sits on the forehead. Another device, SpringTMS, uses transcranial magnetic stimulation on the back of the head. A third option, the gammaCore Sapphire, is placed on the neck to stimulate the vagus nerve. All three have been cleared by the FDA to work as preventive and acute treatments for migraine.

Theranica, the company that developed Nerivio, is trying to boost use of the device by allowing patients to get a prescription via telehealth visits with a physician.

The company, as well as the companies behind the other neuromodulation devices, are marketing their treatments to children ages 12 and up since nonpharmacologic options are often preferable for parents, said Thomas Berk, MD, a clinical associate professor in the division of headache at NYU Langone Health in New York.

Dr. Berk said the devices could be appealing for those people who don’t want or can’t take medication, such as pregnant women or those who don’t respond well to drugs. “[They] could also be used by somebody who needs something in addition to a medication,” he said.

For now, people like Ms. Montgomery say they are happy to have another tool in their migraine arsenal. “Overall, I’m taking less medication because I haven’t had to have my Ubrelvy refilled as often as I used to,” she said. “It’s really helped me manage changes and stresses in my life.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Most people avoid smartphones when they have a migraine headache, but a noninvasive treatment for episodic migraines may change that.

A smartphone-enabled device, cleared by the Food and Drug Administration in early 2021, uses technology to trick the brain into releasing the neurotransmitters serotonin and noradrenaline that can help ease migraine pain.

Tina Montgomery, 58, has suffered from migraines since childhood and spent years looking for something to help manage them. Doctors consider her a “chronic” sufferer in that she has more than 14 migraines a month (fewer than 14 is considered “episodic”). Prescription antidepressants, anticonvulsants, and botulinum toxin shots as preventive treatments helped a little but not enough.

A few years ago, she found some relief using a new preventive injectable medication that targets a peptide known as CGRP, combined with an oral CGRP rescue medication, ubrogepant (Ubrelvy). However, by early 2021, Ms. Montgomery’s chronic migraines were back as she faced stress from the pandemic and her role as a caregiver for her aging parents.

“I was going through so much medication. I just didn’t feel good taking so much,” she said.

Looking for relief, she read about Nerivio, a wearable migraine treatment device that uses remote electrical neuromodulation (REN). She mentioned the device to her neurologist, and he agreed she might benefit from trying it out. Today, she uses the device whenever she feels a migraine may be imminent, she said.

“It really helps me stave off migraines I feel coming on and the milder ones where I would normally hesitate to use prescription medication because [insurance] limits the number of pills they give you in a month,” she said. “I follow through with the Nerivio treatment and usually find that my migraine doesn’t fully develop or is completely gone, and I don’t get a migraine at all.”
 

Taking it on the arm

The device works by stimulating nerves at the back of the arm right around the triceps. “Those nerve fibers relay information to the brain stem [so it can] work its magic and use the brain’s own natural mechanisms for reducing pain,” said Brian M. Grosberg, MD, director of the Hartford Healthcare Ayer Neuroscience Institute Headache Center, West Hartford, Conn.  

These mechanisms are like a bait-and-switch for the brain, said Britany Klenofsky, MD, assistant professor of neurology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. “You’re trying to stimulate pain somewhere else [on the body] to tell the brain to protect itself and release [the neurotransmitter] serotonin,” she said. “You do this by putting the device on your arm, an area that’s away from the head where the pain is actively occurring, turning the device on, and increasing the stimulation to a nearly painful stimulus.”

This pseudo pain prompts the brain to release serotonin, the feel-good hormone along with norepinephrine and noradrenaline. The device works best when it’s used as soon as a migraine starts, so patients should hook up Nerivio within the first 20-30 minutes of onset of pain, said Dr. Grosberg, who was an investigator on the double-blind treatment study that led to FDA clearance. If patients wait too long, the device may not work.

This is why as soon as Ms. Montgomery feels a migraine aura (there are six types of migraine auras, including visual changes and muscle weakness) that occurs right before a migraine strikes, she puts the device armband on her upper arm and launches its smartphone app. Then she turns on the device for a 45-minute treatment, which begins with what she characterizes as tingling and vibration sensations on her arm. She turns up the intensity of the sensations, which are mild electric currents, until they are well-felt but not painful.

Ms. Montgomery said she can use the device and multitask since there’s no need for her to lie down or sit in a darkened room. And since it is worn on the arm, she can wear it under a shirtsleeve while working or out in public without anyone noticing. She also uses the app’s migraine diary and guided meditation to help reduce the anxiety that often accompanies her migraines.

The device is approved for adolescents and adults and can be used for both episodic and chronic migraines. From an efficacy standpoint, the device provides relief about as well as a commonly used pharmaceutical class of drugs, triptans. About 37% of people with episodic migraine achieved complete freedom from pain 2 hours after their treatment. In addition, about two-thirds of people reported pain relief after 2 hours, which is better success than people find with many prescription and nonprescription drugs.

A separate study looked at acute treatment for chronic migraine sufferers and found nearly 60% of people using the device found relief and 21% said they were pain-free after 2 hours. Almost two-thirds of those who experienced pain relief were pain-free 24 hours after the treatment.
 

Finding the perfect patient

There are other FDA-cleared noninvasive devices to treat migraines. One device, CEFALY, is an external trigeminal nerve stimulation device that sits on the forehead. Another device, SpringTMS, uses transcranial magnetic stimulation on the back of the head. A third option, the gammaCore Sapphire, is placed on the neck to stimulate the vagus nerve. All three have been cleared by the FDA to work as preventive and acute treatments for migraine.

Theranica, the company that developed Nerivio, is trying to boost use of the device by allowing patients to get a prescription via telehealth visits with a physician.

The company, as well as the companies behind the other neuromodulation devices, are marketing their treatments to children ages 12 and up since nonpharmacologic options are often preferable for parents, said Thomas Berk, MD, a clinical associate professor in the division of headache at NYU Langone Health in New York.

Dr. Berk said the devices could be appealing for those people who don’t want or can’t take medication, such as pregnant women or those who don’t respond well to drugs. “[They] could also be used by somebody who needs something in addition to a medication,” he said.

For now, people like Ms. Montgomery say they are happy to have another tool in their migraine arsenal. “Overall, I’m taking less medication because I haven’t had to have my Ubrelvy refilled as often as I used to,” she said. “It’s really helped me manage changes and stresses in my life.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Most people avoid smartphones when they have a migraine headache, but a noninvasive treatment for episodic migraines may change that.

A smartphone-enabled device, cleared by the Food and Drug Administration in early 2021, uses technology to trick the brain into releasing the neurotransmitters serotonin and noradrenaline that can help ease migraine pain.

Tina Montgomery, 58, has suffered from migraines since childhood and spent years looking for something to help manage them. Doctors consider her a “chronic” sufferer in that she has more than 14 migraines a month (fewer than 14 is considered “episodic”). Prescription antidepressants, anticonvulsants, and botulinum toxin shots as preventive treatments helped a little but not enough.

A few years ago, she found some relief using a new preventive injectable medication that targets a peptide known as CGRP, combined with an oral CGRP rescue medication, ubrogepant (Ubrelvy). However, by early 2021, Ms. Montgomery’s chronic migraines were back as she faced stress from the pandemic and her role as a caregiver for her aging parents.

“I was going through so much medication. I just didn’t feel good taking so much,” she said.

Looking for relief, she read about Nerivio, a wearable migraine treatment device that uses remote electrical neuromodulation (REN). She mentioned the device to her neurologist, and he agreed she might benefit from trying it out. Today, she uses the device whenever she feels a migraine may be imminent, she said.

“It really helps me stave off migraines I feel coming on and the milder ones where I would normally hesitate to use prescription medication because [insurance] limits the number of pills they give you in a month,” she said. “I follow through with the Nerivio treatment and usually find that my migraine doesn’t fully develop or is completely gone, and I don’t get a migraine at all.”
 

Taking it on the arm

The device works by stimulating nerves at the back of the arm right around the triceps. “Those nerve fibers relay information to the brain stem [so it can] work its magic and use the brain’s own natural mechanisms for reducing pain,” said Brian M. Grosberg, MD, director of the Hartford Healthcare Ayer Neuroscience Institute Headache Center, West Hartford, Conn.  

These mechanisms are like a bait-and-switch for the brain, said Britany Klenofsky, MD, assistant professor of neurology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. “You’re trying to stimulate pain somewhere else [on the body] to tell the brain to protect itself and release [the neurotransmitter] serotonin,” she said. “You do this by putting the device on your arm, an area that’s away from the head where the pain is actively occurring, turning the device on, and increasing the stimulation to a nearly painful stimulus.”

This pseudo pain prompts the brain to release serotonin, the feel-good hormone along with norepinephrine and noradrenaline. The device works best when it’s used as soon as a migraine starts, so patients should hook up Nerivio within the first 20-30 minutes of onset of pain, said Dr. Grosberg, who was an investigator on the double-blind treatment study that led to FDA clearance. If patients wait too long, the device may not work.

This is why as soon as Ms. Montgomery feels a migraine aura (there are six types of migraine auras, including visual changes and muscle weakness) that occurs right before a migraine strikes, she puts the device armband on her upper arm and launches its smartphone app. Then she turns on the device for a 45-minute treatment, which begins with what she characterizes as tingling and vibration sensations on her arm. She turns up the intensity of the sensations, which are mild electric currents, until they are well-felt but not painful.

Ms. Montgomery said she can use the device and multitask since there’s no need for her to lie down or sit in a darkened room. And since it is worn on the arm, she can wear it under a shirtsleeve while working or out in public without anyone noticing. She also uses the app’s migraine diary and guided meditation to help reduce the anxiety that often accompanies her migraines.

The device is approved for adolescents and adults and can be used for both episodic and chronic migraines. From an efficacy standpoint, the device provides relief about as well as a commonly used pharmaceutical class of drugs, triptans. About 37% of people with episodic migraine achieved complete freedom from pain 2 hours after their treatment. In addition, about two-thirds of people reported pain relief after 2 hours, which is better success than people find with many prescription and nonprescription drugs.

A separate study looked at acute treatment for chronic migraine sufferers and found nearly 60% of people using the device found relief and 21% said they were pain-free after 2 hours. Almost two-thirds of those who experienced pain relief were pain-free 24 hours after the treatment.
 

Finding the perfect patient

There are other FDA-cleared noninvasive devices to treat migraines. One device, CEFALY, is an external trigeminal nerve stimulation device that sits on the forehead. Another device, SpringTMS, uses transcranial magnetic stimulation on the back of the head. A third option, the gammaCore Sapphire, is placed on the neck to stimulate the vagus nerve. All three have been cleared by the FDA to work as preventive and acute treatments for migraine.

Theranica, the company that developed Nerivio, is trying to boost use of the device by allowing patients to get a prescription via telehealth visits with a physician.

The company, as well as the companies behind the other neuromodulation devices, are marketing their treatments to children ages 12 and up since nonpharmacologic options are often preferable for parents, said Thomas Berk, MD, a clinical associate professor in the division of headache at NYU Langone Health in New York.

Dr. Berk said the devices could be appealing for those people who don’t want or can’t take medication, such as pregnant women or those who don’t respond well to drugs. “[They] could also be used by somebody who needs something in addition to a medication,” he said.

For now, people like Ms. Montgomery say they are happy to have another tool in their migraine arsenal. “Overall, I’m taking less medication because I haven’t had to have my Ubrelvy refilled as often as I used to,” she said. “It’s really helped me manage changes and stresses in my life.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Updated guidelines for the management and treatment of endometriosis reflect changes in clinical practice to guide clinician and patient decision-making, according to a statement from the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology, which issued the guidelines in February 2022.

Although the exact prevalence of endometriosis remains unclear, estimates suggest that approximately 190 million women and adolescent girls are affected by endometriosis during their reproductive years, and women continue to suffer beyond menopause, according to the authors. Endometriosis has a significant impact on society through both direct and indirect health care costs comparable to those of type 2 diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, and Crohn’s disease, they noted.

The guidelines are the first update on the topic of endometriosis since 2014, and include more than 100 recommendations, according to the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). The target audience, according to the authors, is secondary and tertiary health care providers who treat women with endometriosis. The recommendations were based on research papers published up to Dec. 1, 2020.

Although most of the recent studies confirm previous ESHRE recommendations, several topics reflect significant changes in clinical practice.

Notably, laparoscopy is no longer recommended as the diagnostic gold standard, and should be used only in patients with negative imaging for whom empirical treatment was unsuccessful.

For pain management, studies support the use of GnRH antagonists as a second-line treatment, while laparoscopic uterosacral nerve ablation and presacral neurectomy are no longer included in the recommendations.

The guidelines include new information on pregnancy and fertility preservation for women with endometriosis. The Endometriosis Fertility Index (EFI) was added to support joint decision-making for women seeking pregnancy after surgery. However, the extended use of GnRH antagonist prior to assisted reproductive technology treatments to improve live birth rate is not recommended.

Endometriosis in adolescent patients is included in the guidelines for the first time, and strong recommendations include taking a careful history and using ultrasound if appropriate, but the use of serum biomarkers is not recommended for diagnosis. Strong recommendations for treatment strategies for adolescents include hormonal contraceptives or progestins as a first-line therapy.

Recommendations for managing endometriosis in menopause are more extensive than in previous guidelines and the strongest update is against the use of estrogen-only treatment in these patients. However, the guidelines continue to recommend treating women with a history of endometriosis after surgical menopause with combined estrogen-progestogen therapy “at least up to the age of natural menopause.”

Expanded recommendations related to endometriosis and cancer begin with a strong recommendation for clinicians to advise women that endometriosis is not associated with a significantly higher risk of cancer overall. “Although endometriosis is associated with a higher risk of ovarian, breast, and thyroid cancers in particular, the increase in absolute risk compared with women in the general population is low,” the authors wrote. Other strong recommendations include reassuring women with endometriosis of the low risk of malignancy associated with hormonal contraceptive use, and performing cancer screening according to the existing population-based guidelines without additional screening. Epidemiologic data show that complete excision of visible endometriosis may reduce the risk of ovarian cancer, but the potential benefits must be weighed against the risks of surgery, including morbidity, pain, and ovarian reserve, the authors said.

The guidelines include recommendations related to asymptomatic endometriosis, extrapelvic endometriosis, and primary prevention of endometriosis, but without major changes to the 2014 guidelines.
 

Guidelines expand strategies, but research gaps remain

In 2021, an international working group of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists, the European Society for Gynecologic Endoscopy, ESHRE, and the World Endometriosis Society defined endometriosis as “a disease characterized by the presence of endometrium-like epithelium and/or stroma outside the endometrium and myometrium, usually with an associated inflammatory process,” Mark P. Trolice, MD, director of The IVF Center, Orlando, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, said in an interview.

Although the current guidelines represent the second update since 2005, many unanswered questions remain, Dr. Trolice said. “There is a large diagnostic void between the onset of symptoms and the time to a reliable diagnosis averaging between 8 and 12 years,” he emphasized.

Dr. Trolice noted the change of the addition of an oral GnRH antagonist, “now FDA approved for the treatment of pain associated with endometriosis,” he said. However, “Extended GnRH agonist prior to ART is not recommended due to the lack of any clear benefit,” he noted.

Dr. Trolice noted the inclusion of the Endometriosis Fertility Index (EFI), published in 2010, “as a useful scoring system to predict postoperative non-IVF pregnancy rates (both by natural means and IUI [intrauterine insemination]) based on patient characteristics, revised ASRM staging, and ‘least function score of the adnexa.’ ” He agreed with the need for expanded information on the topics of endometriosis and adolescence and endometriosis and cancer.

The most important changes for clinical practice include reducing unnecessary laparoscopy and procedures without benefit, such as laparoscopic uterosacral nerve ablation and presacral neurectomy, and GnRH suppression using an oral antagonist, said Dr. Trolice. Other especially practical guidance includes the recommendation to discontinue advising patients that pregnancy will reduce symptoms of endometriosis, and to avoid prescribing estrogen-only treatment in menopause given the risk of malignant transformation of endometriosis, he said.

Another clinically useful recommendation, though not a significant update, is the need to identify extrapelvic endometriosis symptoms, such as cyclical shoulder pain, cyclical spontaneous pneumothorax, cyclical cough, or nodules that enlarge during menses, Dr. Trolice added.

Barriers to implementing the updated guidelines include lack of education of clinicians, including primary care providers, and the lack of definitive evidence for many areas, he noted.

As for additional research, more data are needed to explore the genetic, mutational, and epigenetic profile of endometriosis, and to identify biomarkers to noninvasively detect and provide a prognosis for endometriosis, and optimal methods for prevention and management, said Dr. Trolice. Other research gaps include “definitive medical and surgical treatment of endometriosis for improvement of fertility, quality of life, and reduction of pain,” he noted. From a fertility standpoint, more studies are needed on “the use of ovarian tissue or oocytes cryopreservation in adolescents and adults who undergo ovarian surgery for endometriomas, and the role of the EFI as a presurgical triage tool and to predict IUI outcomes,” said Dr. Trolice.

Overall, society recommendations such as these from ESHRE “serve as guides for physicians by providing evidence-based medicine and dispelling prior unproven practices so patients may receive the most effective care of endometriosis, throughout a woman’s life,” Dr. Trolice emphasized.

The current guideline will be considered for revision in 2025, and the full version is available on the ESHRE website.

Members of the ESHRE guideline development group received no payment for participating in the development process, although they were reimbursed for travel expenses related to guideline meetings.

Dr. Trolice had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Ob.Gyn News.

Updated guidelines for the management and treatment of endometriosis reflect changes in clinical practice to guide clinician and patient decision-making, according to a statement from the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology, which issued the guidelines in February 2022.

Although the exact prevalence of endometriosis remains unclear, estimates suggest that approximately 190 million women and adolescent girls are affected by endometriosis during their reproductive years, and women continue to suffer beyond menopause, according to the authors. Endometriosis has a significant impact on society through both direct and indirect health care costs comparable to those of type 2 diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, and Crohn’s disease, they noted.

The guidelines are the first update on the topic of endometriosis since 2014, and include more than 100 recommendations, according to the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). The target audience, according to the authors, is secondary and tertiary health care providers who treat women with endometriosis. The recommendations were based on research papers published up to Dec. 1, 2020.

Although most of the recent studies confirm previous ESHRE recommendations, several topics reflect significant changes in clinical practice.

Notably, laparoscopy is no longer recommended as the diagnostic gold standard, and should be used only in patients with negative imaging for whom empirical treatment was unsuccessful.

For pain management, studies support the use of GnRH antagonists as a second-line treatment, while laparoscopic uterosacral nerve ablation and presacral neurectomy are no longer included in the recommendations.

The guidelines include new information on pregnancy and fertility preservation for women with endometriosis. The Endometriosis Fertility Index (EFI) was added to support joint decision-making for women seeking pregnancy after surgery. However, the extended use of GnRH antagonist prior to assisted reproductive technology treatments to improve live birth rate is not recommended.

Endometriosis in adolescent patients is included in the guidelines for the first time, and strong recommendations include taking a careful history and using ultrasound if appropriate, but the use of serum biomarkers is not recommended for diagnosis. Strong recommendations for treatment strategies for adolescents include hormonal contraceptives or progestins as a first-line therapy.

Recommendations for managing endometriosis in menopause are more extensive than in previous guidelines and the strongest update is against the use of estrogen-only treatment in these patients. However, the guidelines continue to recommend treating women with a history of endometriosis after surgical menopause with combined estrogen-progestogen therapy “at least up to the age of natural menopause.”

Expanded recommendations related to endometriosis and cancer begin with a strong recommendation for clinicians to advise women that endometriosis is not associated with a significantly higher risk of cancer overall. “Although endometriosis is associated with a higher risk of ovarian, breast, and thyroid cancers in particular, the increase in absolute risk compared with women in the general population is low,” the authors wrote. Other strong recommendations include reassuring women with endometriosis of the low risk of malignancy associated with hormonal contraceptive use, and performing cancer screening according to the existing population-based guidelines without additional screening. Epidemiologic data show that complete excision of visible endometriosis may reduce the risk of ovarian cancer, but the potential benefits must be weighed against the risks of surgery, including morbidity, pain, and ovarian reserve, the authors said.

The guidelines include recommendations related to asymptomatic endometriosis, extrapelvic endometriosis, and primary prevention of endometriosis, but without major changes to the 2014 guidelines.
 

Guidelines expand strategies, but research gaps remain

In 2021, an international working group of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists, the European Society for Gynecologic Endoscopy, ESHRE, and the World Endometriosis Society defined endometriosis as “a disease characterized by the presence of endometrium-like epithelium and/or stroma outside the endometrium and myometrium, usually with an associated inflammatory process,” Mark P. Trolice, MD, director of The IVF Center, Orlando, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, said in an interview.

Although the current guidelines represent the second update since 2005, many unanswered questions remain, Dr. Trolice said. “There is a large diagnostic void between the onset of symptoms and the time to a reliable diagnosis averaging between 8 and 12 years,” he emphasized.

Dr. Trolice noted the change of the addition of an oral GnRH antagonist, “now FDA approved for the treatment of pain associated with endometriosis,” he said. However, “Extended GnRH agonist prior to ART is not recommended due to the lack of any clear benefit,” he noted.

Dr. Trolice noted the inclusion of the Endometriosis Fertility Index (EFI), published in 2010, “as a useful scoring system to predict postoperative non-IVF pregnancy rates (both by natural means and IUI [intrauterine insemination]) based on patient characteristics, revised ASRM staging, and ‘least function score of the adnexa.’ ” He agreed with the need for expanded information on the topics of endometriosis and adolescence and endometriosis and cancer.

The most important changes for clinical practice include reducing unnecessary laparoscopy and procedures without benefit, such as laparoscopic uterosacral nerve ablation and presacral neurectomy, and GnRH suppression using an oral antagonist, said Dr. Trolice. Other especially practical guidance includes the recommendation to discontinue advising patients that pregnancy will reduce symptoms of endometriosis, and to avoid prescribing estrogen-only treatment in menopause given the risk of malignant transformation of endometriosis, he said.

Another clinically useful recommendation, though not a significant update, is the need to identify extrapelvic endometriosis symptoms, such as cyclical shoulder pain, cyclical spontaneous pneumothorax, cyclical cough, or nodules that enlarge during menses, Dr. Trolice added.

Barriers to implementing the updated guidelines include lack of education of clinicians, including primary care providers, and the lack of definitive evidence for many areas, he noted.

As for additional research, more data are needed to explore the genetic, mutational, and epigenetic profile of endometriosis, and to identify biomarkers to noninvasively detect and provide a prognosis for endometriosis, and optimal methods for prevention and management, said Dr. Trolice. Other research gaps include “definitive medical and surgical treatment of endometriosis for improvement of fertility, quality of life, and reduction of pain,” he noted. From a fertility standpoint, more studies are needed on “the use of ovarian tissue or oocytes cryopreservation in adolescents and adults who undergo ovarian surgery for endometriomas, and the role of the EFI as a presurgical triage tool and to predict IUI outcomes,” said Dr. Trolice.

Overall, society recommendations such as these from ESHRE “serve as guides for physicians by providing evidence-based medicine and dispelling prior unproven practices so patients may receive the most effective care of endometriosis, throughout a woman’s life,” Dr. Trolice emphasized.

The current guideline will be considered for revision in 2025, and the full version is available on the ESHRE website.

Members of the ESHRE guideline development group received no payment for participating in the development process, although they were reimbursed for travel expenses related to guideline meetings.

Dr. Trolice had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Ob.Gyn News.

Updated guidelines for the management and treatment of endometriosis reflect changes in clinical practice to guide clinician and patient decision-making, according to a statement from the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology, which issued the guidelines in February 2022.

Although the exact prevalence of endometriosis remains unclear, estimates suggest that approximately 190 million women and adolescent girls are affected by endometriosis during their reproductive years, and women continue to suffer beyond menopause, according to the authors. Endometriosis has a significant impact on society through both direct and indirect health care costs comparable to those of type 2 diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, and Crohn’s disease, they noted.

The guidelines are the first update on the topic of endometriosis since 2014, and include more than 100 recommendations, according to the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). The target audience, according to the authors, is secondary and tertiary health care providers who treat women with endometriosis. The recommendations were based on research papers published up to Dec. 1, 2020.

Although most of the recent studies confirm previous ESHRE recommendations, several topics reflect significant changes in clinical practice.

Notably, laparoscopy is no longer recommended as the diagnostic gold standard, and should be used only in patients with negative imaging for whom empirical treatment was unsuccessful.

For pain management, studies support the use of GnRH antagonists as a second-line treatment, while laparoscopic uterosacral nerve ablation and presacral neurectomy are no longer included in the recommendations.

The guidelines include new information on pregnancy and fertility preservation for women with endometriosis. The Endometriosis Fertility Index (EFI) was added to support joint decision-making for women seeking pregnancy after surgery. However, the extended use of GnRH antagonist prior to assisted reproductive technology treatments to improve live birth rate is not recommended.

Endometriosis in adolescent patients is included in the guidelines for the first time, and strong recommendations include taking a careful history and using ultrasound if appropriate, but the use of serum biomarkers is not recommended for diagnosis. Strong recommendations for treatment strategies for adolescents include hormonal contraceptives or progestins as a first-line therapy.

Recommendations for managing endometriosis in menopause are more extensive than in previous guidelines and the strongest update is against the use of estrogen-only treatment in these patients. However, the guidelines continue to recommend treating women with a history of endometriosis after surgical menopause with combined estrogen-progestogen therapy “at least up to the age of natural menopause.”

Expanded recommendations related to endometriosis and cancer begin with a strong recommendation for clinicians to advise women that endometriosis is not associated with a significantly higher risk of cancer overall. “Although endometriosis is associated with a higher risk of ovarian, breast, and thyroid cancers in particular, the increase in absolute risk compared with women in the general population is low,” the authors wrote. Other strong recommendations include reassuring women with endometriosis of the low risk of malignancy associated with hormonal contraceptive use, and performing cancer screening according to the existing population-based guidelines without additional screening. Epidemiologic data show that complete excision of visible endometriosis may reduce the risk of ovarian cancer, but the potential benefits must be weighed against the risks of surgery, including morbidity, pain, and ovarian reserve, the authors said.

The guidelines include recommendations related to asymptomatic endometriosis, extrapelvic endometriosis, and primary prevention of endometriosis, but without major changes to the 2014 guidelines.
 

Guidelines expand strategies, but research gaps remain

In 2021, an international working group of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists, the European Society for Gynecologic Endoscopy, ESHRE, and the World Endometriosis Society defined endometriosis as “a disease characterized by the presence of endometrium-like epithelium and/or stroma outside the endometrium and myometrium, usually with an associated inflammatory process,” Mark P. Trolice, MD, director of The IVF Center, Orlando, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, said in an interview.

Although the current guidelines represent the second update since 2005, many unanswered questions remain, Dr. Trolice said. “There is a large diagnostic void between the onset of symptoms and the time to a reliable diagnosis averaging between 8 and 12 years,” he emphasized.

Dr. Trolice noted the change of the addition of an oral GnRH antagonist, “now FDA approved for the treatment of pain associated with endometriosis,” he said. However, “Extended GnRH agonist prior to ART is not recommended due to the lack of any clear benefit,” he noted.

Dr. Trolice noted the inclusion of the Endometriosis Fertility Index (EFI), published in 2010, “as a useful scoring system to predict postoperative non-IVF pregnancy rates (both by natural means and IUI [intrauterine insemination]) based on patient characteristics, revised ASRM staging, and ‘least function score of the adnexa.’ ” He agreed with the need for expanded information on the topics of endometriosis and adolescence and endometriosis and cancer.

The most important changes for clinical practice include reducing unnecessary laparoscopy and procedures without benefit, such as laparoscopic uterosacral nerve ablation and presacral neurectomy, and GnRH suppression using an oral antagonist, said Dr. Trolice. Other especially practical guidance includes the recommendation to discontinue advising patients that pregnancy will reduce symptoms of endometriosis, and to avoid prescribing estrogen-only treatment in menopause given the risk of malignant transformation of endometriosis, he said.

Another clinically useful recommendation, though not a significant update, is the need to identify extrapelvic endometriosis symptoms, such as cyclical shoulder pain, cyclical spontaneous pneumothorax, cyclical cough, or nodules that enlarge during menses, Dr. Trolice added.

Barriers to implementing the updated guidelines include lack of education of clinicians, including primary care providers, and the lack of definitive evidence for many areas, he noted.

As for additional research, more data are needed to explore the genetic, mutational, and epigenetic profile of endometriosis, and to identify biomarkers to noninvasively detect and provide a prognosis for endometriosis, and optimal methods for prevention and management, said Dr. Trolice. Other research gaps include “definitive medical and surgical treatment of endometriosis for improvement of fertility, quality of life, and reduction of pain,” he noted. From a fertility standpoint, more studies are needed on “the use of ovarian tissue or oocytes cryopreservation in adolescents and adults who undergo ovarian surgery for endometriomas, and the role of the EFI as a presurgical triage tool and to predict IUI outcomes,” said Dr. Trolice.

Overall, society recommendations such as these from ESHRE “serve as guides for physicians by providing evidence-based medicine and dispelling prior unproven practices so patients may receive the most effective care of endometriosis, throughout a woman’s life,” Dr. Trolice emphasized.

The current guideline will be considered for revision in 2025, and the full version is available on the ESHRE website.

Members of the ESHRE guideline development group received no payment for participating in the development process, although they were reimbursed for travel expenses related to guideline meetings.

Dr. Trolice had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Ob.Gyn News.

Hundreds of Native American tribes have tentatively settled in what one of the lead attorneys describes as “an epic deal”: The top 3 pharmaceutical distributors in the US and Johnson & Johnson have agreed to pay $665 million for deceptive marketing practices and overdistribution of opioids. Native Americans were among those hardest hit by the opioid epidemic. Between 2006 and 2014, Native Americans were nearly 50% more likely than non-Natives to die of an opioid overdose. In 2014, they ranked number 1 for death by opioid overdose.

Overprescribing was rampant. In some areas, such as southwestern Virginia, eastern Kentucky, and Alabama, prescriptions were 5 to 6 times higher than the national average. The overprescribing was largely due to massive and aggressive billion-dollar marketing campaigns, which misrepresented the safety of opioid medications. Purdue Pharma, for instance, trained sales representatives to claim that the risk of addiction was “less than 1 percent.” In an interview with Smithsonian Magazine, Caleb Alexander, MD, codirector of Johns Hopkins’ Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness, said, “When I was in residency training, we were taught that one needn’t worry about the addictive potential of opioids if a patient had true pain.” He said it was no accident that physicians were cultivated to overestimate the effectiveness for chronic, noncancer pain while underestimating the risks.

Native Americans were not only in the target group for prescriptions, but also apparently singularly targeted. “We were preyed upon,” said Chickasaw Nation Governor Bill Anoatubby in the Washington Post. “It was unconscionable.” A Washington Post analysis found that, between 2006 and 2014, opioid distributors shipped an average of 36 pills per person in the US. States in the so-called opioid belt (mostly Southern states), received an average of 60 to 66 pills per person. The distributors shipped 57 pills per person to Oklahoma, home to nearly 322,000 Native Americans. (The opioid death rate for Native Americans in Oklahoma from 2006 to 2014 was more than triple the nationwide rate for non-Natives.) In South Dakota as recently as 2015, enough opioids were prescribed to medicate every adult around-the-clock for 19 consecutive days. Native Americans comprise 9% of South Dakota’s population; however, almost 30% of the patients are being treated for opioid use disorder.

In the settlement, which is a first for tribes, McKesson, Cardinal Health, and AmerisourceBergen would pay $515 million over 7 years. Johnson & Johnson would contribute $150 million in 2 years to the federally recognized tribes. “This settlement is a real turning point in history,” said Lloyd Miller, one of the attorneys representing one-third of the litigating tribes.

But the money is still small compensation for ravaging millions of lives. “Flooding the Native community with Western medicine—sedating a population rather than seeking to understand its needs and challenges—is not an acceptable means of handling its trauma,” the Lakota People’s Law Project says in an article on its website. Thus, the money dispersal will be overseen by a panel of tribal health experts, to go toward programs that aid drug users and their communities.

The funds will be managed in a way that will consider the long-term damage, Native American leaders vow. Children, for instance, have not been exempt from the sequelae of the overprescribing. Foster care systems are “overrun” with children of addicted parents, the Law Project says, and the children are placed in homes outside the tribe. “In the long run, this has the potential to curtail tribal membership, break down familial lines, and degrade cultural values.”

Dealing with the problem has drained tribal resources—doubly strained by the COVID-19 epidemic. Chairman Douglas Yankton, of the Spirit Lake Nation in North Dakota, said in a statement, “The dollars that will flow to Tribes under this initial settlement will help fund crucial, on-reservation, culturally appropriate opioid treatment services.”

However, Chairman Kristopher Peters, of the Squaxin Island Tribe in Washington State, told the Washington Post, “There is no amount of money that’s going to solve the generational issues that have been created from this. Our hope is that we can use these funds to help revitalize our culture and help heal our people.”

Johnson & Johnson says it no longer sells prescription opioids in the US

Hundreds of Native American tribes have tentatively settled in what one of the lead attorneys describes as “an epic deal”: The top 3 pharmaceutical distributors in the US and Johnson & Johnson have agreed to pay $665 million for deceptive marketing practices and overdistribution of opioids. Native Americans were among those hardest hit by the opioid epidemic. Between 2006 and 2014, Native Americans were nearly 50% more likely than non-Natives to die of an opioid overdose. In 2014, they ranked number 1 for death by opioid overdose.

Overprescribing was rampant. In some areas, such as southwestern Virginia, eastern Kentucky, and Alabama, prescriptions were 5 to 6 times higher than the national average. The overprescribing was largely due to massive and aggressive billion-dollar marketing campaigns, which misrepresented the safety of opioid medications. Purdue Pharma, for instance, trained sales representatives to claim that the risk of addiction was “less than 1 percent.” In an interview with Smithsonian Magazine, Caleb Alexander, MD, codirector of Johns Hopkins’ Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness, said, “When I was in residency training, we were taught that one needn’t worry about the addictive potential of opioids if a patient had true pain.” He said it was no accident that physicians were cultivated to overestimate the effectiveness for chronic, noncancer pain while underestimating the risks.

Native Americans were not only in the target group for prescriptions, but also apparently singularly targeted. “We were preyed upon,” said Chickasaw Nation Governor Bill Anoatubby in the Washington Post. “It was unconscionable.” A Washington Post analysis found that, between 2006 and 2014, opioid distributors shipped an average of 36 pills per person in the US. States in the so-called opioid belt (mostly Southern states), received an average of 60 to 66 pills per person. The distributors shipped 57 pills per person to Oklahoma, home to nearly 322,000 Native Americans. (The opioid death rate for Native Americans in Oklahoma from 2006 to 2014 was more than triple the nationwide rate for non-Natives.) In South Dakota as recently as 2015, enough opioids were prescribed to medicate every adult around-the-clock for 19 consecutive days. Native Americans comprise 9% of South Dakota’s population; however, almost 30% of the patients are being treated for opioid use disorder.

In the settlement, which is a first for tribes, McKesson, Cardinal Health, and AmerisourceBergen would pay $515 million over 7 years. Johnson & Johnson would contribute $150 million in 2 years to the federally recognized tribes. “This settlement is a real turning point in history,” said Lloyd Miller, one of the attorneys representing one-third of the litigating tribes.

But the money is still small compensation for ravaging millions of lives. “Flooding the Native community with Western medicine—sedating a population rather than seeking to understand its needs and challenges—is not an acceptable means of handling its trauma,” the Lakota People’s Law Project says in an article on its website. Thus, the money dispersal will be overseen by a panel of tribal health experts, to go toward programs that aid drug users and their communities.

The funds will be managed in a way that will consider the long-term damage, Native American leaders vow. Children, for instance, have not been exempt from the sequelae of the overprescribing. Foster care systems are “overrun” with children of addicted parents, the Law Project says, and the children are placed in homes outside the tribe. “In the long run, this has the potential to curtail tribal membership, break down familial lines, and degrade cultural values.”

Dealing with the problem has drained tribal resources—doubly strained by the COVID-19 epidemic. Chairman Douglas Yankton, of the Spirit Lake Nation in North Dakota, said in a statement, “The dollars that will flow to Tribes under this initial settlement will help fund crucial, on-reservation, culturally appropriate opioid treatment services.”

However, Chairman Kristopher Peters, of the Squaxin Island Tribe in Washington State, told the Washington Post, “There is no amount of money that’s going to solve the generational issues that have been created from this. Our hope is that we can use these funds to help revitalize our culture and help heal our people.”

Johnson & Johnson says it no longer sells prescription opioids in the US

Hundreds of Native American tribes have tentatively settled in what one of the lead attorneys describes as “an epic deal”: The top 3 pharmaceutical distributors in the US and Johnson & Johnson have agreed to pay $665 million for deceptive marketing practices and overdistribution of opioids. Native Americans were among those hardest hit by the opioid epidemic. Between 2006 and 2014, Native Americans were nearly 50% more likely than non-Natives to die of an opioid overdose. In 2014, they ranked number 1 for death by opioid overdose.

Overprescribing was rampant. In some areas, such as southwestern Virginia, eastern Kentucky, and Alabama, prescriptions were 5 to 6 times higher than the national average. The overprescribing was largely due to massive and aggressive billion-dollar marketing campaigns, which misrepresented the safety of opioid medications. Purdue Pharma, for instance, trained sales representatives to claim that the risk of addiction was “less than 1 percent.” In an interview with Smithsonian Magazine, Caleb Alexander, MD, codirector of Johns Hopkins’ Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness, said, “When I was in residency training, we were taught that one needn’t worry about the addictive potential of opioids if a patient had true pain.” He said it was no accident that physicians were cultivated to overestimate the effectiveness for chronic, noncancer pain while underestimating the risks.

Native Americans were not only in the target group for prescriptions, but also apparently singularly targeted. “We were preyed upon,” said Chickasaw Nation Governor Bill Anoatubby in the Washington Post. “It was unconscionable.” A Washington Post analysis found that, between 2006 and 2014, opioid distributors shipped an average of 36 pills per person in the US. States in the so-called opioid belt (mostly Southern states), received an average of 60 to 66 pills per person. The distributors shipped 57 pills per person to Oklahoma, home to nearly 322,000 Native Americans. (The opioid death rate for Native Americans in Oklahoma from 2006 to 2014 was more than triple the nationwide rate for non-Natives.) In South Dakota as recently as 2015, enough opioids were prescribed to medicate every adult around-the-clock for 19 consecutive days. Native Americans comprise 9% of South Dakota’s population; however, almost 30% of the patients are being treated for opioid use disorder.

In the settlement, which is a first for tribes, McKesson, Cardinal Health, and AmerisourceBergen would pay $515 million over 7 years. Johnson & Johnson would contribute $150 million in 2 years to the federally recognized tribes. “This settlement is a real turning point in history,” said Lloyd Miller, one of the attorneys representing one-third of the litigating tribes.

But the money is still small compensation for ravaging millions of lives. “Flooding the Native community with Western medicine—sedating a population rather than seeking to understand its needs and challenges—is not an acceptable means of handling its trauma,” the Lakota People’s Law Project says in an article on its website. Thus, the money dispersal will be overseen by a panel of tribal health experts, to go toward programs that aid drug users and their communities.

The funds will be managed in a way that will consider the long-term damage, Native American leaders vow. Children, for instance, have not been exempt from the sequelae of the overprescribing. Foster care systems are “overrun” with children of addicted parents, the Law Project says, and the children are placed in homes outside the tribe. “In the long run, this has the potential to curtail tribal membership, break down familial lines, and degrade cultural values.”

Dealing with the problem has drained tribal resources—doubly strained by the COVID-19 epidemic. Chairman Douglas Yankton, of the Spirit Lake Nation in North Dakota, said in a statement, “The dollars that will flow to Tribes under this initial settlement will help fund crucial, on-reservation, culturally appropriate opioid treatment services.”

However, Chairman Kristopher Peters, of the Squaxin Island Tribe in Washington State, told the Washington Post, “There is no amount of money that’s going to solve the generational issues that have been created from this. Our hope is that we can use these funds to help revitalize our culture and help heal our people.”

Johnson & Johnson says it no longer sells prescription opioids in the US

Exposure to opioid analgesics during the first trimester of pregnancy appears to increase the risk of congenital anomalies diagnosed in the first year of life, researchers report.

While the absolute risk of congenital anomalies was low, these findings add to an increasing body of evidence suggesting that prenatal exposure to opioids may confer harm to infants post partum.

“We undertook a population-based cohort study to estimate associations between opioid analgesic exposure during the first trimester and congenital anomalies using health administrative data capturing all narcotic prescriptions during pregnancy,” lead author Alexa C. Bowie, MPH, of Queen’s University in Kingston, Ont., and colleagues reported in CMAJ.

The researchers retrospectively reviewed administrative health data in a single-payer health care system from 2013 to 2018. They identified parent-infant pair records for all live births and stillbirths that occurred at more than 20 weeks’ gestation.

The exposure of interest was a prescription for any opioid analgesic with a fill date between the estimated date of conception and less than 14 weeks’ gestation. The referent group included any infant not exposed to an opioid analgesic during the index pregnancy period.
 

Results

The study cohort included a total of 599,579 gestational parent-infant pairs. Of these, 11,903 (2.0%) were exposed to opioid analgesics, and most were exposed during the first trimester only (75.8%).

Overall, 2.0% of these infants developed a congenital anomaly during the first year of life; the prevalence of congenital anomalies was 2.0% in unexposed infants and 2.8% in exposed infants.

Relative to unexposed infants, the researchers observed greater risks among infants who were exposed for some anomaly groups, including many specific anomalies, such as ankyloglossia (any opioid: adjusted risk ratio, 1.88; 95% confidence interval, 1.30-2.72; codeine: aRR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.35-3.40), as well as gastrointestinal anomalies (any opioid: aRR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.15-1.85; codeine: aRR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.12-2.09; tramadol: aRR, 2.69; 95% CI 1.34-5.38).

After sensitivity analyses, which included exposure 4 weeks before conception or excluded individuals with exposure to opioid analgesics before pregnancy, the findings remained unchanged.

“Although the overall risk was low, we observed an increased risk of any congenital anomaly with tramadol, and a previously unreported risk with morphine,” the researchers wrote.

“Previous studies reported elevated risks of heart anomalies with first-trimester exposure to any opioid analgesic, codeine, and tramadol, but others reported no association with any opioid analgesic or codeine,” they explained.
 

Interpreting the results

Study author Susan Brogly, PhD, of Queen’s University said “Our population-based study confirms evidence of a small increased risk of birth defects from opioid analgesic exposure in the first trimester that was observed in a recent study of private insurance and Medicaid beneficiaries in the U.S. We further show that this small increased risk is not due to other risk factors for fetal harm in women who may take these medications.”

“An opioid prescription dispensed in the first trimester would imply that there was an acute injury or chronic condition also present in the first trimester, which may also be associated with congenital abnormalities,” commented Elisabeth Poorman, MD, MPH, a clinical instructor and primary care physician at the University of Washington in Seattle.

“Opioid use disorder is often diagnosed incorrectly; since the researchers used diagnostic billing codes to exclude individuals with opioid use disorder, some women may have been missed,” Dr. Poorman explained.

Ms. Bowie and colleagues acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was the identification of cases using diagnostic billing codes. As a result, exposure-dependent recording bias could be present and limit the applicability of the findings.

“The diagnosis and documentation of minor anomalies and those with subtle medical significance could be vulnerable to exposure-dependent recording bias,” Ms. Bowie wrote.

Dr. Poorman recommended that these results should be interpreted with caution given these and other limitations. “Overall, results from this study may imply that there is limited evidence to suspect opioids are related to congenital abnormalities due to a very small difference observed in relatively unequal groups,” she concluded.

This study received funding from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institutes of Child Health and Human Development and was also supported by the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health. One author reported receiving honoraria from the National Institutes of Health and a grant from the Canadian Institute of Health Research, outside the submitted work. No other competing interests were declared.

Exposure to opioid analgesics during the first trimester of pregnancy appears to increase the risk of congenital anomalies diagnosed in the first year of life, researchers report.

While the absolute risk of congenital anomalies was low, these findings add to an increasing body of evidence suggesting that prenatal exposure to opioids may confer harm to infants post partum.

“We undertook a population-based cohort study to estimate associations between opioid analgesic exposure during the first trimester and congenital anomalies using health administrative data capturing all narcotic prescriptions during pregnancy,” lead author Alexa C. Bowie, MPH, of Queen’s University in Kingston, Ont., and colleagues reported in CMAJ.

The researchers retrospectively reviewed administrative health data in a single-payer health care system from 2013 to 2018. They identified parent-infant pair records for all live births and stillbirths that occurred at more than 20 weeks’ gestation.

The exposure of interest was a prescription for any opioid analgesic with a fill date between the estimated date of conception and less than 14 weeks’ gestation. The referent group included any infant not exposed to an opioid analgesic during the index pregnancy period.
 

Results

The study cohort included a total of 599,579 gestational parent-infant pairs. Of these, 11,903 (2.0%) were exposed to opioid analgesics, and most were exposed during the first trimester only (75.8%).

Overall, 2.0% of these infants developed a congenital anomaly during the first year of life; the prevalence of congenital anomalies was 2.0% in unexposed infants and 2.8% in exposed infants.

Relative to unexposed infants, the researchers observed greater risks among infants who were exposed for some anomaly groups, including many specific anomalies, such as ankyloglossia (any opioid: adjusted risk ratio, 1.88; 95% confidence interval, 1.30-2.72; codeine: aRR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.35-3.40), as well as gastrointestinal anomalies (any opioid: aRR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.15-1.85; codeine: aRR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.12-2.09; tramadol: aRR, 2.69; 95% CI 1.34-5.38).

After sensitivity analyses, which included exposure 4 weeks before conception or excluded individuals with exposure to opioid analgesics before pregnancy, the findings remained unchanged.

“Although the overall risk was low, we observed an increased risk of any congenital anomaly with tramadol, and a previously unreported risk with morphine,” the researchers wrote.

“Previous studies reported elevated risks of heart anomalies with first-trimester exposure to any opioid analgesic, codeine, and tramadol, but others reported no association with any opioid analgesic or codeine,” they explained.
 

Interpreting the results

Study author Susan Brogly, PhD, of Queen’s University said “Our population-based study confirms evidence of a small increased risk of birth defects from opioid analgesic exposure in the first trimester that was observed in a recent study of private insurance and Medicaid beneficiaries in the U.S. We further show that this small increased risk is not due to other risk factors for fetal harm in women who may take these medications.”

“An opioid prescription dispensed in the first trimester would imply that there was an acute injury or chronic condition also present in the first trimester, which may also be associated with congenital abnormalities,” commented Elisabeth Poorman, MD, MPH, a clinical instructor and primary care physician at the University of Washington in Seattle.

“Opioid use disorder is often diagnosed incorrectly; since the researchers used diagnostic billing codes to exclude individuals with opioid use disorder, some women may have been missed,” Dr. Poorman explained.

Ms. Bowie and colleagues acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was the identification of cases using diagnostic billing codes. As a result, exposure-dependent recording bias could be present and limit the applicability of the findings.

“The diagnosis and documentation of minor anomalies and those with subtle medical significance could be vulnerable to exposure-dependent recording bias,” Ms. Bowie wrote.

Dr. Poorman recommended that these results should be interpreted with caution given these and other limitations. “Overall, results from this study may imply that there is limited evidence to suspect opioids are related to congenital abnormalities due to a very small difference observed in relatively unequal groups,” she concluded.

This study received funding from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institutes of Child Health and Human Development and was also supported by the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health. One author reported receiving honoraria from the National Institutes of Health and a grant from the Canadian Institute of Health Research, outside the submitted work. No other competing interests were declared.

Exposure to opioid analgesics during the first trimester of pregnancy appears to increase the risk of congenital anomalies diagnosed in the first year of life, researchers report.

While the absolute risk of congenital anomalies was low, these findings add to an increasing body of evidence suggesting that prenatal exposure to opioids may confer harm to infants post partum.

“We undertook a population-based cohort study to estimate associations between opioid analgesic exposure during the first trimester and congenital anomalies using health administrative data capturing all narcotic prescriptions during pregnancy,” lead author Alexa C. Bowie, MPH, of Queen’s University in Kingston, Ont., and colleagues reported in CMAJ.

The researchers retrospectively reviewed administrative health data in a single-payer health care system from 2013 to 2018. They identified parent-infant pair records for all live births and stillbirths that occurred at more than 20 weeks’ gestation.

The exposure of interest was a prescription for any opioid analgesic with a fill date between the estimated date of conception and less than 14 weeks’ gestation. The referent group included any infant not exposed to an opioid analgesic during the index pregnancy period.
 

Results

The study cohort included a total of 599,579 gestational parent-infant pairs. Of these, 11,903 (2.0%) were exposed to opioid analgesics, and most were exposed during the first trimester only (75.8%).

Overall, 2.0% of these infants developed a congenital anomaly during the first year of life; the prevalence of congenital anomalies was 2.0% in unexposed infants and 2.8% in exposed infants.

Relative to unexposed infants, the researchers observed greater risks among infants who were exposed for some anomaly groups, including many specific anomalies, such as ankyloglossia (any opioid: adjusted risk ratio, 1.88; 95% confidence interval, 1.30-2.72; codeine: aRR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.35-3.40), as well as gastrointestinal anomalies (any opioid: aRR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.15-1.85; codeine: aRR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.12-2.09; tramadol: aRR, 2.69; 95% CI 1.34-5.38).

After sensitivity analyses, which included exposure 4 weeks before conception or excluded individuals with exposure to opioid analgesics before pregnancy, the findings remained unchanged.

“Although the overall risk was low, we observed an increased risk of any congenital anomaly with tramadol, and a previously unreported risk with morphine,” the researchers wrote.

“Previous studies reported elevated risks of heart anomalies with first-trimester exposure to any opioid analgesic, codeine, and tramadol, but others reported no association with any opioid analgesic or codeine,” they explained.
 

Interpreting the results

Study author Susan Brogly, PhD, of Queen’s University said “Our population-based study confirms evidence of a small increased risk of birth defects from opioid analgesic exposure in the first trimester that was observed in a recent study of private insurance and Medicaid beneficiaries in the U.S. We further show that this small increased risk is not due to other risk factors for fetal harm in women who may take these medications.”

“An opioid prescription dispensed in the first trimester would imply that there was an acute injury or chronic condition also present in the first trimester, which may also be associated with congenital abnormalities,” commented Elisabeth Poorman, MD, MPH, a clinical instructor and primary care physician at the University of Washington in Seattle.

“Opioid use disorder is often diagnosed incorrectly; since the researchers used diagnostic billing codes to exclude individuals with opioid use disorder, some women may have been missed,” Dr. Poorman explained.

Ms. Bowie and colleagues acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was the identification of cases using diagnostic billing codes. As a result, exposure-dependent recording bias could be present and limit the applicability of the findings.

“The diagnosis and documentation of minor anomalies and those with subtle medical significance could be vulnerable to exposure-dependent recording bias,” Ms. Bowie wrote.

Dr. Poorman recommended that these results should be interpreted with caution given these and other limitations. “Overall, results from this study may imply that there is limited evidence to suspect opioids are related to congenital abnormalities due to a very small difference observed in relatively unequal groups,” she concluded.

This study received funding from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institutes of Child Health and Human Development and was also supported by the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health. One author reported receiving honoraria from the National Institutes of Health and a grant from the Canadian Institute of Health Research, outside the submitted work. No other competing interests were declared.

Opioid overdose is a major public health challenge, with recent reports estimating 41 deaths per day in the United States from prescription opioid overdose.^1,2 Prescribing naloxone has increasingly been advocated to reduce the risk of opioid overdose for patients identified as high risk. Naloxone distribution has been shown to decrease the incidence of opioid overdoses in the general population.^3,4 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain recommends considering naloxone prescription for patients with a history of overdose or substance use disorder, opioid dosages ≥ 50 morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD), and concurrent use of benzodiazepines.⁵

Although the CDC guidelines are intended for primary care clinicians in outpatient settings, naloxone prescribing is also relevant in the postsurgical setting.⁵ Many surgical patients are at risk for opioid overdose and data from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has shown that risk of opioid overdose is 11-fold higher in the 30 days following discharge from a surgical admission, when compared with the subsequent calendar year.^6,7 This likely occurs due to new prescriptions or escalated doses of opioids following surgery. Overdose risk may be particularly relevant to orthopedic surgery as postoperative opioids are commonly prescribed.⁸ Patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) may represent a vulnerable population to overdose as it is one of the most commonly performed surgeries for the treatment of chronic pain, and is frequently performed in older adults with medical comorbidities.^9,10

Identifying patients at high risk for opioid overdose is important for targeted naloxone dispensing.⁵ A risk index for overdose or serious opioid-induced respiratory depression (RIOSORD) tool has been developed and validated in veteran and other populations to identify such patients.¹¹ The RIOSORD tool classifies patients by risk level (1-10) and predicts probability of overdose or serious opioid-induced respiratory depression (OSORD). A patient’s level of risk is based on a weighted combination of the 15 independent risk factors most highly associated with OSORD, including comorbid conditions, prescription drug use, and health care utilization.¹² Using the RIOSORD tool, the VHA Opioid Education and Naloxone Distribution (OEND) program is a risk mitigation initiative that aims to decrease opioid-related overdose morbidity and mortality. This is achieved via opioid overdose education for prevention, recognition, and response and includes outpatient naloxone prescription.^13,14

Despite the comprehensive OEND program, there exists very little data to guide postsurgical naloxone prescribing. The prevalence of known risk factors for overdose in surgical patients remains unknown, as does the prevalence of perioperative naloxone distribution. Understanding overdose risk factors and naloxone prescribing patterns in surgical patients may identify potential targets for OEND efforts. This study retrospectively estimated RIOSORD scores for TKA patients between 2013 to 2016 and described naloxone distribution based on RIOSORD scores and risk factors.

Methods

We identified patients who had undergone primary TKA at VHA hospitals using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT), International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) procedure codes, and data extracted from the VHA Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW) of electronic health records (EHRs). Our study was granted approval with exemption from informed consent by the Durham Veteran Affairs Healthcare System Institutional Review Board.

This retrospective cohort study included all veterans who underwent elective primary TKA from January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2016. We excluded patients who died before discharge.

Outcomes

Our primary outcome was being dispensed an outpatient naloxone prescription following TKA. Naloxone dispensing was identified by examining CDW outpatient pharmacy records with a final dispense date from 1 year before surgery through 7 days after discharge following TKA. To exclude naloxone administration that may have been given in a clinic, prescription data included only records with an outpatient prescription copay. Naloxone dispensing in the year before surgery was chosen to estimate likely preoperative possession of naloxone which could be available in the postoperative period. Naloxone dispensing until 7 days after discharge was chosen to identify any new dispensing that would be available in the postoperative period. These outcomes were examined over the study time frame on an annual basis.

Patient Factors

Demographic variables included age, sex, and race/ethnicity. Independent risk factors for overdose from RIOSORD were identified for each patient.¹⁵ These risk factors included comorbidities (opioid use disorder, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, liver disease, chronic kidney disease, sleep apnea, or lung disease) and prescription drug use (use of opioids, benzodiazepines, long-acting opioids, ≥ 50 MEDD or ≥ 100 MEDD). ICD-9 and ICD-10 diagnosis codes were used to identify comorbidities. Risk classes on day of surgery were identified using a RIOSORD algorithm code. Consistent with the display of RIOSORD risk classes on the VHA Academic Detailing Service OEND risk report, patients were grouped into 3 groups based on their RIOSORD score: classes 1 to 4 (low risk), 5 to 7 (moderate risk), and 8 to 10 (high risk).

Descriptive statistics were used to summarize data on patient demographics, RIOSORD risk factors, overdose events, and naloxone dispensing over time.

Results

The study cohort included 38,011 veterans who underwent primary TKA in the VHA between January 1, 2013 and December 30, 2016. In this cohort, the mean age was 65 years, 93% were male, and 77% were White patients (Table 1). The most common comorbidities were lung disease in 9170 (24.1%) patients, sleep apnea in 6630 (17.4%) patients, chronic kidney disease in 4036 (10.6%) patients, liver disease in 2822 (7.4%) patients, and bipolar disorder in 1748 (4.6%) patients.

In 2013, 63.1% of patients presenting for surgery were actively prescribed opioids. By 2016, this decreased to 50.5%. Benzodiazepine use decreased from 13.2 to 8.8% and long-acting opioid use decreased from 8.5 to 5.8% over the same period. Patients taking ≥ 50 MEDD decreased from 8.0 to 5.3% and patients taking ≥ 100 MEDD decreased from 3.3 to 2.2%. The prevalence of moderate-risk patients decreased from 2.5 to 1.6% and high-risk patients decreased from 0.8 to 0.6% (Figure 1). Cumulatively, the prevalence of presenting with either moderate or high risk of overdose decreased from 3.3 to 2.2% between 2013 to 2016.

Naloxone Dispensing

In 2013, naloxone was not dispensed to any patients at moderate or high risk for overdose between 365 days prior to surgery until 7 days after discharge (Table 2 and Figure 2). Low-risk group naloxone dispensing increased to 2 (0.0%) in 2014, to 13 (0.1%), in 2015, and to 86 (0.9%) in 2016. Moderate-risk group naloxone dispensing remained at 0 (0.0%) in 2014, but increased to 8 (3.5%) in 2015, and to 18 (10.9%) in 2016. High-risk group naloxone dispensing remained at 0 (0.0%) in 2014, but increased to 5 (5.8%) in 2015, and to 8 (12.7%) in 2016 (Figure 3).

Discussion

Our data demonstrate that patients presenting for TKA between 2013 and 2016 routinely had individual risk factors for overdose related to either prescription drug use or comorbidities. We also show that, although the number of patients at moderate and high risk for opioid overdose is decreasing, 2.2% of TKA patients remain at moderate or high risk for opioid overdose based on a weighted combination of these individual risk factors using RIOSORD. As demand for primary TKA is projected to grow to 3.5 million procedures by 2030, using prevalence from 2016, we estimate that 76,560 patients may present for TKA across the US with moderate or high risk for opioid overdose.⁹ Following discharge, this risk may be even higher as this estimate does not yet account for postoperative opioid use. We demonstrate that through a VHA OEND initiative, naloxone distribution increased and appeared to be targeted to those most at risk using a simple validated tool like RIOSORD.

Presence of an individual risk factor for overdose was present in as many as 63.1% of patients presenting for TKA, as was seen in 2013 with preoperative opioid use. The 3 highest scoring prescription use–related risk factors in RIOSORD are use of opioids ≥ 100 MEDD (16 points), ≥ 50 MEDD (9 points), and long-acting formulations (9 points). All 3 decreased in prevalence over the study period but by 2016 were still seen in 2.2% for ≥ 100 MEDD, 5.3% for ≥ 50 MEDD, and 5.8% for long-acting opioids. This decrease was not surprising given implementation of a VHA-wide opioid safety initiative and the OEND program, but this could also be related to changes in patient selection for surgery in the context of increased awareness of the opioid epidemic. Despite the trend toward safer opioid prescribing, by 2016 over half of patients (50.5%) who presented for TKA were already taking opioids, with 10.6% (543 of 5127) on doses ≥ 50 MEDD.

We observed a decrease in RIOSORD risk each year, consistent with decreasing prescription-related risk factors over time. This was most obvious in the moderate-risk group. It is unclear why a similar decrease was not as obvious in the high-risk group, but this in part may be due to the already low numbers of patients in the high-risk group. This may also represent the high-risk group being somewhat resistant to the initiatives that shifted moderate-risk patients to the low-risk group. There were proportionately more patients in the moderate- and high-risk groups in the original RIOSORD population than in our surgical population, which may be attributed to the fewer comorbidities seen in our surgical population, as well as the higher opioid-prescribing patterns seen prior to the VA OEND initiative.¹²

Naloxone prescribing was rare prior to the OEND initiative and increased from 2013 to 2016. Increases were most marked in those in moderate- and high-risk groups, although naloxone prescribing also increased among the low-risk group. Integration of RIOSORD stratification into the OEND initiative likely played a role in targeting increased access to naloxone among those at highest risk of overdose. Naloxone dispensing increased for every group, although a significant proportion of moderate- and high-risk patients, 89.1% and 87.3%, respectively, were still not dispensed naloxone by 2016. Moreover, our estimates of perioperative naloxone access were likely an overestimate by including patients dispensed naloxone up to 1 year before surgery until 7 days after surgery. The aim was to include patients who may not have been prescribed naloxone postoperatively because of an existing naloxone prescription at home. Perioperative naloxone access estimates would have been even lower if a narrower window had been used to approximate perioperative access. This identifies an important gap between those who may benefit from naloxone dispensing and those who received naloxone. This in part may be because OEND has not been implemented as routinely in surgical settings as other settings (eg, primary care). OEND efforts may more effectively increase naloxone prescribing among surgical patients if these efforts were targeted at surgical and anesthesia departments. Given that the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016 requires an assessment of patient risk prior to opioid prescribing and VHA efforts to increase utilization of tools like the Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Mitigation (STORM), which estimates patient risk when initiating an opioid prescription and includes naloxone as one of many risk mitigation strategies, we anticipate that rates of naloxone prescribing will increase over time.

Limitations

Our study captures a large number of patients across VHA hospitals of varying size nationwide, including a mix of those with and without academic medical center affiliations. This veteran population may not represent the US commercially insured population (CIP). Zedler and colleagues highlighted the differences in prevalence of individual risk factors: notably, the CIP had a substantially higher proportion of females and younger patients.¹¹ VHA had a greater prevalence of common chronic conditions associated with older age. The frequency of opioid dependence was similar among CIP and VHA. However, substance abuse and nonopioid substance dependence diagnoses were 4-fold more frequent among VHA controls as CIP controls. Prescribing of all opioids, except morphine and methadone, was substantially greater in CIP than in VHA.¹¹ Despite a difference in individual risk factors, a CIP-specific RIOSORD has been validated and can be used outside of the VHA to obviate the limitations of the VHA-specific RIOSORD.¹¹

Other limitations include our estimation of naloxone access. We do not know whether naloxone was administered or have a reliable estimate of overdose incidence in this postoperative TKA population. Also, it is important to note that RIOSORD was not developed for surgical patients. The use of RIOSORD in a postoperative population likely underestimates risk of opioid overdose due to the frequent prescriptions of new opioids or escalation of existing MEDD to the postoperative patient. Our study was also retrospective in nature and reliant on accurate coding of patient risk factors. It is possible that comorbidities were not accurately identified by EHR and therefore subject to inconsistency.

Conclusions

Veterans presenting for TKA routinely have risk factors for opioid overdose. We observed a trend toward decreasing overdose risk which coincided with the Opioid Safety and OEND initiatives within the VHA. We also observed an increase in naloxone prescription for moderate- and high-risk patients undergoing TKA, although most of these patients still did not receive naloxone as of 2016. More research is needed to refine and validate the RIOSORD score for surgical populations. Expanding initiatives such as OEND to include surgical patients presents an opportunity to improve access to naloxone for postoperative patients that may help reduce opioid overdose in this population.

Opioid overdose is a major public health challenge, with recent reports estimating 41 deaths per day in the United States from prescription opioid overdose.^1,2 Prescribing naloxone has increasingly been advocated to reduce the risk of opioid overdose for patients identified as high risk. Naloxone distribution has been shown to decrease the incidence of opioid overdoses in the general population.^3,4 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain recommends considering naloxone prescription for patients with a history of overdose or substance use disorder, opioid dosages ≥ 50 morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD), and concurrent use of benzodiazepines.⁵

Although the CDC guidelines are intended for primary care clinicians in outpatient settings, naloxone prescribing is also relevant in the postsurgical setting.⁵ Many surgical patients are at risk for opioid overdose and data from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has shown that risk of opioid overdose is 11-fold higher in the 30 days following discharge from a surgical admission, when compared with the subsequent calendar year.^6,7 This likely occurs due to new prescriptions or escalated doses of opioids following surgery. Overdose risk may be particularly relevant to orthopedic surgery as postoperative opioids are commonly prescribed.⁸ Patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) may represent a vulnerable population to overdose as it is one of the most commonly performed surgeries for the treatment of chronic pain, and is frequently performed in older adults with medical comorbidities.^9,10

Identifying patients at high risk for opioid overdose is important for targeted naloxone dispensing.⁵ A risk index for overdose or serious opioid-induced respiratory depression (RIOSORD) tool has been developed and validated in veteran and other populations to identify such patients.¹¹ The RIOSORD tool classifies patients by risk level (1-10) and predicts probability of overdose or serious opioid-induced respiratory depression (OSORD). A patient’s level of risk is based on a weighted combination of the 15 independent risk factors most highly associated with OSORD, including comorbid conditions, prescription drug use, and health care utilization.¹² Using the RIOSORD tool, the VHA Opioid Education and Naloxone Distribution (OEND) program is a risk mitigation initiative that aims to decrease opioid-related overdose morbidity and mortality. This is achieved via opioid overdose education for prevention, recognition, and response and includes outpatient naloxone prescription.^13,14

Despite the comprehensive OEND program, there exists very little data to guide postsurgical naloxone prescribing. The prevalence of known risk factors for overdose in surgical patients remains unknown, as does the prevalence of perioperative naloxone distribution. Understanding overdose risk factors and naloxone prescribing patterns in surgical patients may identify potential targets for OEND efforts. This study retrospectively estimated RIOSORD scores for TKA patients between 2013 to 2016 and described naloxone distribution based on RIOSORD scores and risk factors.

Methods

We identified patients who had undergone primary TKA at VHA hospitals using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT), International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) procedure codes, and data extracted from the VHA Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW) of electronic health records (EHRs). Our study was granted approval with exemption from informed consent by the Durham Veteran Affairs Healthcare System Institutional Review Board.

This retrospective cohort study included all veterans who underwent elective primary TKA from January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2016. We excluded patients who died before discharge.

Outcomes

Our primary outcome was being dispensed an outpatient naloxone prescription following TKA. Naloxone dispensing was identified by examining CDW outpatient pharmacy records with a final dispense date from 1 year before surgery through 7 days after discharge following TKA. To exclude naloxone administration that may have been given in a clinic, prescription data included only records with an outpatient prescription copay. Naloxone dispensing in the year before surgery was chosen to estimate likely preoperative possession of naloxone which could be available in the postoperative period. Naloxone dispensing until 7 days after discharge was chosen to identify any new dispensing that would be available in the postoperative period. These outcomes were examined over the study time frame on an annual basis.

Patient Factors

Demographic variables included age, sex, and race/ethnicity. Independent risk factors for overdose from RIOSORD were identified for each patient.¹⁵ These risk factors included comorbidities (opioid use disorder, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, liver disease, chronic kidney disease, sleep apnea, or lung disease) and prescription drug use (use of opioids, benzodiazepines, long-acting opioids, ≥ 50 MEDD or ≥ 100 MEDD). ICD-9 and ICD-10 diagnosis codes were used to identify comorbidities. Risk classes on day of surgery were identified using a RIOSORD algorithm code. Consistent with the display of RIOSORD risk classes on the VHA Academic Detailing Service OEND risk report, patients were grouped into 3 groups based on their RIOSORD score: classes 1 to 4 (low risk), 5 to 7 (moderate risk), and 8 to 10 (high risk).

Descriptive statistics were used to summarize data on patient demographics, RIOSORD risk factors, overdose events, and naloxone dispensing over time.

Results

The study cohort included 38,011 veterans who underwent primary TKA in the VHA between January 1, 2013 and December 30, 2016. In this cohort, the mean age was 65 years, 93% were male, and 77% were White patients (Table 1). The most common comorbidities were lung disease in 9170 (24.1%) patients, sleep apnea in 6630 (17.4%) patients, chronic kidney disease in 4036 (10.6%) patients, liver disease in 2822 (7.4%) patients, and bipolar disorder in 1748 (4.6%) patients.

In 2013, 63.1% of patients presenting for surgery were actively prescribed opioids. By 2016, this decreased to 50.5%. Benzodiazepine use decreased from 13.2 to 8.8% and long-acting opioid use decreased from 8.5 to 5.8% over the same period. Patients taking ≥ 50 MEDD decreased from 8.0 to 5.3% and patients taking ≥ 100 MEDD decreased from 3.3 to 2.2%. The prevalence of moderate-risk patients decreased from 2.5 to 1.6% and high-risk patients decreased from 0.8 to 0.6% (Figure 1). Cumulatively, the prevalence of presenting with either moderate or high risk of overdose decreased from 3.3 to 2.2% between 2013 to 2016.

Naloxone Dispensing

In 2013, naloxone was not dispensed to any patients at moderate or high risk for overdose between 365 days prior to surgery until 7 days after discharge (Table 2 and Figure 2). Low-risk group naloxone dispensing increased to 2 (0.0%) in 2014, to 13 (0.1%), in 2015, and to 86 (0.9%) in 2016. Moderate-risk group naloxone dispensing remained at 0 (0.0%) in 2014, but increased to 8 (3.5%) in 2015, and to 18 (10.9%) in 2016. High-risk group naloxone dispensing remained at 0 (0.0%) in 2014, but increased to 5 (5.8%) in 2015, and to 8 (12.7%) in 2016 (Figure 3).

Discussion

Our data demonstrate that patients presenting for TKA between 2013 and 2016 routinely had individual risk factors for overdose related to either prescription drug use or comorbidities. We also show that, although the number of patients at moderate and high risk for opioid overdose is decreasing, 2.2% of TKA patients remain at moderate or high risk for opioid overdose based on a weighted combination of these individual risk factors using RIOSORD. As demand for primary TKA is projected to grow to 3.5 million procedures by 2030, using prevalence from 2016, we estimate that 76,560 patients may present for TKA across the US with moderate or high risk for opioid overdose.⁹ Following discharge, this risk may be even higher as this estimate does not yet account for postoperative opioid use. We demonstrate that through a VHA OEND initiative, naloxone distribution increased and appeared to be targeted to those most at risk using a simple validated tool like RIOSORD.

Presence of an individual risk factor for overdose was present in as many as 63.1% of patients presenting for TKA, as was seen in 2013 with preoperative opioid use. The 3 highest scoring prescription use–related risk factors in RIOSORD are use of opioids ≥ 100 MEDD (16 points), ≥ 50 MEDD (9 points), and long-acting formulations (9 points). All 3 decreased in prevalence over the study period but by 2016 were still seen in 2.2% for ≥ 100 MEDD, 5.3% for ≥ 50 MEDD, and 5.8% for long-acting opioids. This decrease was not surprising given implementation of a VHA-wide opioid safety initiative and the OEND program, but this could also be related to changes in patient selection for surgery in the context of increased awareness of the opioid epidemic. Despite the trend toward safer opioid prescribing, by 2016 over half of patients (50.5%) who presented for TKA were already taking opioids, with 10.6% (543 of 5127) on doses ≥ 50 MEDD.

We observed a decrease in RIOSORD risk each year, consistent with decreasing prescription-related risk factors over time. This was most obvious in the moderate-risk group. It is unclear why a similar decrease was not as obvious in the high-risk group, but this in part may be due to the already low numbers of patients in the high-risk group. This may also represent the high-risk group being somewhat resistant to the initiatives that shifted moderate-risk patients to the low-risk group. There were proportionately more patients in the moderate- and high-risk groups in the original RIOSORD population than in our surgical population, which may be attributed to the fewer comorbidities seen in our surgical population, as well as the higher opioid-prescribing patterns seen prior to the VA OEND initiative.¹²

Naloxone prescribing was rare prior to the OEND initiative and increased from 2013 to 2016. Increases were most marked in those in moderate- and high-risk groups, although naloxone prescribing also increased among the low-risk group. Integration of RIOSORD stratification into the OEND initiative likely played a role in targeting increased access to naloxone among those at highest risk of overdose. Naloxone dispensing increased for every group, although a significant proportion of moderate- and high-risk patients, 89.1% and 87.3%, respectively, were still not dispensed naloxone by 2016. Moreover, our estimates of perioperative naloxone access were likely an overestimate by including patients dispensed naloxone up to 1 year before surgery until 7 days after surgery. The aim was to include patients who may not have been prescribed naloxone postoperatively because of an existing naloxone prescription at home. Perioperative naloxone access estimates would have been even lower if a narrower window had been used to approximate perioperative access. This identifies an important gap between those who may benefit from naloxone dispensing and those who received naloxone. This in part may be because OEND has not been implemented as routinely in surgical settings as other settings (eg, primary care). OEND efforts may more effectively increase naloxone prescribing among surgical patients if these efforts were targeted at surgical and anesthesia departments. Given that the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016 requires an assessment of patient risk prior to opioid prescribing and VHA efforts to increase utilization of tools like the Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Mitigation (STORM), which estimates patient risk when initiating an opioid prescription and includes naloxone as one of many risk mitigation strategies, we anticipate that rates of naloxone prescribing will increase over time.

Limitations

Our study captures a large number of patients across VHA hospitals of varying size nationwide, including a mix of those with and without academic medical center affiliations. This veteran population may not represent the US commercially insured population (CIP). Zedler and colleagues highlighted the differences in prevalence of individual risk factors: notably, the CIP had a substantially higher proportion of females and younger patients.¹¹ VHA had a greater prevalence of common chronic conditions associated with older age. The frequency of opioid dependence was similar among CIP and VHA. However, substance abuse and nonopioid substance dependence diagnoses were 4-fold more frequent among VHA controls as CIP controls. Prescribing of all opioids, except morphine and methadone, was substantially greater in CIP than in VHA.¹¹ Despite a difference in individual risk factors, a CIP-specific RIOSORD has been validated and can be used outside of the VHA to obviate the limitations of the VHA-specific RIOSORD.¹¹

Other limitations include our estimation of naloxone access. We do not know whether naloxone was administered or have a reliable estimate of overdose incidence in this postoperative TKA population. Also, it is important to note that RIOSORD was not developed for surgical patients. The use of RIOSORD in a postoperative population likely underestimates risk of opioid overdose due to the frequent prescriptions of new opioids or escalation of existing MEDD to the postoperative patient. Our study was also retrospective in nature and reliant on accurate coding of patient risk factors. It is possible that comorbidities were not accurately identified by EHR and therefore subject to inconsistency.

Conclusions

Veterans presenting for TKA routinely have risk factors for opioid overdose. We observed a trend toward decreasing overdose risk which coincided with the Opioid Safety and OEND initiatives within the VHA. We also observed an increase in naloxone prescription for moderate- and high-risk patients undergoing TKA, although most of these patients still did not receive naloxone as of 2016. More research is needed to refine and validate the RIOSORD score for surgical populations. Expanding initiatives such as OEND to include surgical patients presents an opportunity to improve access to naloxone for postoperative patients that may help reduce opioid overdose in this population.

Opioid overdose is a major public health challenge, with recent reports estimating 41 deaths per day in the United States from prescription opioid overdose.^1,2 Prescribing naloxone has increasingly been advocated to reduce the risk of opioid overdose for patients identified as high risk. Naloxone distribution has been shown to decrease the incidence of opioid overdoses in the general population.^3,4 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain recommends considering naloxone prescription for patients with a history of overdose or substance use disorder, opioid dosages ≥ 50 morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD), and concurrent use of benzodiazepines.⁵

Although the CDC guidelines are intended for primary care clinicians in outpatient settings, naloxone prescribing is also relevant in the postsurgical setting.⁵ Many surgical patients are at risk for opioid overdose and data from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has shown that risk of opioid overdose is 11-fold higher in the 30 days following discharge from a surgical admission, when compared with the subsequent calendar year.^6,7 This likely occurs due to new prescriptions or escalated doses of opioids following surgery. Overdose risk may be particularly relevant to orthopedic surgery as postoperative opioids are commonly prescribed.⁸ Patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) may represent a vulnerable population to overdose as it is one of the most commonly performed surgeries for the treatment of chronic pain, and is frequently performed in older adults with medical comorbidities.^9,10

Identifying patients at high risk for opioid overdose is important for targeted naloxone dispensing.⁵ A risk index for overdose or serious opioid-induced respiratory depression (RIOSORD) tool has been developed and validated in veteran and other populations to identify such patients.¹¹ The RIOSORD tool classifies patients by risk level (1-10) and predicts probability of overdose or serious opioid-induced respiratory depression (OSORD). A patient’s level of risk is based on a weighted combination of the 15 independent risk factors most highly associated with OSORD, including comorbid conditions, prescription drug use, and health care utilization.¹² Using the RIOSORD tool, the VHA Opioid Education and Naloxone Distribution (OEND) program is a risk mitigation initiative that aims to decrease opioid-related overdose morbidity and mortality. This is achieved via opioid overdose education for prevention, recognition, and response and includes outpatient naloxone prescription.^13,14

Despite the comprehensive OEND program, there exists very little data to guide postsurgical naloxone prescribing. The prevalence of known risk factors for overdose in surgical patients remains unknown, as does the prevalence of perioperative naloxone distribution. Understanding overdose risk factors and naloxone prescribing patterns in surgical patients may identify potential targets for OEND efforts. This study retrospectively estimated RIOSORD scores for TKA patients between 2013 to 2016 and described naloxone distribution based on RIOSORD scores and risk factors.

Methods

We identified patients who had undergone primary TKA at VHA hospitals using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT), International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) procedure codes, and data extracted from the VHA Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW) of electronic health records (EHRs). Our study was granted approval with exemption from informed consent by the Durham Veteran Affairs Healthcare System Institutional Review Board.

This retrospective cohort study included all veterans who underwent elective primary TKA from January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2016. We excluded patients who died before discharge.

Outcomes

Our primary outcome was being dispensed an outpatient naloxone prescription following TKA. Naloxone dispensing was identified by examining CDW outpatient pharmacy records with a final dispense date from 1 year before surgery through 7 days after discharge following TKA. To exclude naloxone administration that may have been given in a clinic, prescription data included only records with an outpatient prescription copay. Naloxone dispensing in the year before surgery was chosen to estimate likely preoperative possession of naloxone which could be available in the postoperative period. Naloxone dispensing until 7 days after discharge was chosen to identify any new dispensing that would be available in the postoperative period. These outcomes were examined over the study time frame on an annual basis.

Patient Factors

Demographic variables included age, sex, and race/ethnicity. Independent risk factors for overdose from RIOSORD were identified for each patient.¹⁵ These risk factors included comorbidities (opioid use disorder, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, liver disease, chronic kidney disease, sleep apnea, or lung disease) and prescription drug use (use of opioids, benzodiazepines, long-acting opioids, ≥ 50 MEDD or ≥ 100 MEDD). ICD-9 and ICD-10 diagnosis codes were used to identify comorbidities. Risk classes on day of surgery were identified using a RIOSORD algorithm code. Consistent with the display of RIOSORD risk classes on the VHA Academic Detailing Service OEND risk report, patients were grouped into 3 groups based on their RIOSORD score: classes 1 to 4 (low risk), 5 to 7 (moderate risk), and 8 to 10 (high risk).

Descriptive statistics were used to summarize data on patient demographics, RIOSORD risk factors, overdose events, and naloxone dispensing over time.

Results

The study cohort included 38,011 veterans who underwent primary TKA in the VHA between January 1, 2013 and December 30, 2016. In this cohort, the mean age was 65 years, 93% were male, and 77% were White patients (Table 1). The most common comorbidities were lung disease in 9170 (24.1%) patients, sleep apnea in 6630 (17.4%) patients, chronic kidney disease in 4036 (10.6%) patients, liver disease in 2822 (7.4%) patients, and bipolar disorder in 1748 (4.6%) patients.

In 2013, 63.1% of patients presenting for surgery were actively prescribed opioids. By 2016, this decreased to 50.5%. Benzodiazepine use decreased from 13.2 to 8.8% and long-acting opioid use decreased from 8.5 to 5.8% over the same period. Patients taking ≥ 50 MEDD decreased from 8.0 to 5.3% and patients taking ≥ 100 MEDD decreased from 3.3 to 2.2%. The prevalence of moderate-risk patients decreased from 2.5 to 1.6% and high-risk patients decreased from 0.8 to 0.6% (Figure 1). Cumulatively, the prevalence of presenting with either moderate or high risk of overdose decreased from 3.3 to 2.2% between 2013 to 2016.

Naloxone Dispensing

In 2013, naloxone was not dispensed to any patients at moderate or high risk for overdose between 365 days prior to surgery until 7 days after discharge (Table 2 and Figure 2). Low-risk group naloxone dispensing increased to 2 (0.0%) in 2014, to 13 (0.1%), in 2015, and to 86 (0.9%) in 2016. Moderate-risk group naloxone dispensing remained at 0 (0.0%) in 2014, but increased to 8 (3.5%) in 2015, and to 18 (10.9%) in 2016. High-risk group naloxone dispensing remained at 0 (0.0%) in 2014, but increased to 5 (5.8%) in 2015, and to 8 (12.7%) in 2016 (Figure 3).

Discussion

Our data demonstrate that patients presenting for TKA between 2013 and 2016 routinely had individual risk factors for overdose related to either prescription drug use or comorbidities. We also show that, although the number of patients at moderate and high risk for opioid overdose is decreasing, 2.2% of TKA patients remain at moderate or high risk for opioid overdose based on a weighted combination of these individual risk factors using RIOSORD. As demand for primary TKA is projected to grow to 3.5 million procedures by 2030, using prevalence from 2016, we estimate that 76,560 patients may present for TKA across the US with moderate or high risk for opioid overdose.⁹ Following discharge, this risk may be even higher as this estimate does not yet account for postoperative opioid use. We demonstrate that through a VHA OEND initiative, naloxone distribution increased and appeared to be targeted to those most at risk using a simple validated tool like RIOSORD.

Presence of an individual risk factor for overdose was present in as many as 63.1% of patients presenting for TKA, as was seen in 2013 with preoperative opioid use. The 3 highest scoring prescription use–related risk factors in RIOSORD are use of opioids ≥ 100 MEDD (16 points), ≥ 50 MEDD (9 points), and long-acting formulations (9 points). All 3 decreased in prevalence over the study period but by 2016 were still seen in 2.2% for ≥ 100 MEDD, 5.3% for ≥ 50 MEDD, and 5.8% for long-acting opioids. This decrease was not surprising given implementation of a VHA-wide opioid safety initiative and the OEND program, but this could also be related to changes in patient selection for surgery in the context of increased awareness of the opioid epidemic. Despite the trend toward safer opioid prescribing, by 2016 over half of patients (50.5%) who presented for TKA were already taking opioids, with 10.6% (543 of 5127) on doses ≥ 50 MEDD.

We observed a decrease in RIOSORD risk each year, consistent with decreasing prescription-related risk factors over time. This was most obvious in the moderate-risk group. It is unclear why a similar decrease was not as obvious in the high-risk group, but this in part may be due to the already low numbers of patients in the high-risk group. This may also represent the high-risk group being somewhat resistant to the initiatives that shifted moderate-risk patients to the low-risk group. There were proportionately more patients in the moderate- and high-risk groups in the original RIOSORD population than in our surgical population, which may be attributed to the fewer comorbidities seen in our surgical population, as well as the higher opioid-prescribing patterns seen prior to the VA OEND initiative.¹²

Naloxone prescribing was rare prior to the OEND initiative and increased from 2013 to 2016. Increases were most marked in those in moderate- and high-risk groups, although naloxone prescribing also increased among the low-risk group. Integration of RIOSORD stratification into the OEND initiative likely played a role in targeting increased access to naloxone among those at highest risk of overdose. Naloxone dispensing increased for every group, although a significant proportion of moderate- and high-risk patients, 89.1% and 87.3%, respectively, were still not dispensed naloxone by 2016. Moreover, our estimates of perioperative naloxone access were likely an overestimate by including patients dispensed naloxone up to 1 year before surgery until 7 days after surgery. The aim was to include patients who may not have been prescribed naloxone postoperatively because of an existing naloxone prescription at home. Perioperative naloxone access estimates would have been even lower if a narrower window had been used to approximate perioperative access. This identifies an important gap between those who may benefit from naloxone dispensing and those who received naloxone. This in part may be because OEND has not been implemented as routinely in surgical settings as other settings (eg, primary care). OEND efforts may more effectively increase naloxone prescribing among surgical patients if these efforts were targeted at surgical and anesthesia departments. Given that the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016 requires an assessment of patient risk prior to opioid prescribing and VHA efforts to increase utilization of tools like the Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Mitigation (STORM), which estimates patient risk when initiating an opioid prescription and includes naloxone as one of many risk mitigation strategies, we anticipate that rates of naloxone prescribing will increase over time.

Limitations

Our study captures a large number of patients across VHA hospitals of varying size nationwide, including a mix of those with and without academic medical center affiliations. This veteran population may not represent the US commercially insured population (CIP). Zedler and colleagues highlighted the differences in prevalence of individual risk factors: notably, the CIP had a substantially higher proportion of females and younger patients.¹¹ VHA had a greater prevalence of common chronic conditions associated with older age. The frequency of opioid dependence was similar among CIP and VHA. However, substance abuse and nonopioid substance dependence diagnoses were 4-fold more frequent among VHA controls as CIP controls. Prescribing of all opioids, except morphine and methadone, was substantially greater in CIP than in VHA.¹¹ Despite a difference in individual risk factors, a CIP-specific RIOSORD has been validated and can be used outside of the VHA to obviate the limitations of the VHA-specific RIOSORD.¹¹

Other limitations include our estimation of naloxone access. We do not know whether naloxone was administered or have a reliable estimate of overdose incidence in this postoperative TKA population. Also, it is important to note that RIOSORD was not developed for surgical patients. The use of RIOSORD in a postoperative population likely underestimates risk of opioid overdose due to the frequent prescriptions of new opioids or escalation of existing MEDD to the postoperative patient. Our study was also retrospective in nature and reliant on accurate coding of patient risk factors. It is possible that comorbidities were not accurately identified by EHR and therefore subject to inconsistency.

Conclusions

Veterans presenting for TKA routinely have risk factors for opioid overdose. We observed a trend toward decreasing overdose risk which coincided with the Opioid Safety and OEND initiatives within the VHA. We also observed an increase in naloxone prescription for moderate- and high-risk patients undergoing TKA, although most of these patients still did not receive naloxone as of 2016. More research is needed to refine and validate the RIOSORD score for surgical populations. Expanding initiatives such as OEND to include surgical patients presents an opportunity to improve access to naloxone for postoperative patients that may help reduce opioid overdose in this population.

A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down – but what if the sugar is the medicine?

Nearly three in four children with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) or unexplained abdominal pain reported at least a 30% improvement in discomfort after taking a regimen of sugar water they knew had no medicinal properties.

The findings, published online in JAMA Pediatrics on Jan. 31, 2022, also revealed that participants used significantly less rescue medications when taking the so-called “open-label placebo.” The magnitude of the effect was enough to meet one of the criteria from the Food and Drug Administration to approve drugs to treat IBS, which affects between 10% and 15% of U.S. children.

Although open-label placebo is not ready for clinical use, IBS expert Miranda van Tilburg, PhD, said she is “glad we have evidence” of a strong response in this patient population and that the results “may make clinicians rethink how they introduce treatments.

“By emphasizing their belief that a treatment may work, clinicians can harness the placebo effect,” Dr. van Tilburg, professor of medicine and vice chair of research at Marshall University, Huntington, W.Va., told this news organization.

Study leader Samuel Nurko, MD, MPH, the director of the functional abdominal pain program at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said placebo-controlled trials in patients with IBS and functional abdominal pain consistently show a “very high placebo response.” The question his group set out to answer, he said, was: “Can we get the pain symptoms of these children better by giving them placebo with no deception?”

Between 2015 and 2018, Dr. Nurko and colleagues randomly assigned 30 children and adolescents, aged 8-18 years, with IBS or functional abdominal pain to receive either an open-label inert liquid placebo – consisting of 85% sucrose, citric acid, purified water, and the preservative methyl paraben – twice daily for 3 weeks followed by 3 weeks with no placebo, or to follow the reverse sequence. Roughly half (53%) of the children had functional abdominal pain, and 47% had IBS as defined by Rome III criteria.

Researchers at the three participating clinical sites followed a standardized protocol for explaining the nature of placebo (“like sugar pills without medication”), telling participants that adults with conditions like theirs often benefit from placebo when they receive it as part of blinded, randomized clinical trials. Participants in the study were allowed to use hyoscyamine, an anticholinergic medication, as rescue treatment during the trial.

Dr. Nurko’s team reported that patients had a mean pain score of 39.9 on a 100-point visual analogue scale during the open-label placebo phase of the trial and a mean score of 45 during the control period. That difference was statistically significant (P = .03).

Participants took an average of two hyoscyamine pills during the placebo phase, compared with 3.8 pills during the 3-week period when they did not receive placebo (P < .001).

Nearly three-fourths (73.3%) of children in the study reported that open-label placebo improved their pain by over 30%, thus meeting one of the FDA’s criteria for clinical evaluation of drugs for IBS. Half said the placebo liquid cut their pain by more than 50%.

Dr. Nurko said the findings highlight the need to address “mind-body connections” in the management of gut-brain disorders. Like Dr. van Tilburg, he cautioned that open-label placebo “is not ready for widespread use. Placebo is complicated, and we need to understand the mechanism” underlying its efficacy.

“The idea is eventually we will be able to sort out the exact mechanism and harness it for clinical practice,” he added.

However, Dr. van Tilburg expressed that using placebo therapy to treat children and adolescents with these conditions could send the message that “the pain is not real or all in their heads. Children with chronic pain encounter a lot of stigma, and this kind of treatment may increase the feeling of not being believed. We should be careful to avoid this.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Schwartz family fund, the Foundation for the Science of the Therapeutic Relationship, and the Morgan Family Foundation.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down – but what if the sugar is the medicine?

Nearly three in four children with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) or unexplained abdominal pain reported at least a 30% improvement in discomfort after taking a regimen of sugar water they knew had no medicinal properties.

The findings, published online in JAMA Pediatrics on Jan. 31, 2022, also revealed that participants used significantly less rescue medications when taking the so-called “open-label placebo.” The magnitude of the effect was enough to meet one of the criteria from the Food and Drug Administration to approve drugs to treat IBS, which affects between 10% and 15% of U.S. children.

Although open-label placebo is not ready for clinical use, IBS expert Miranda van Tilburg, PhD, said she is “glad we have evidence” of a strong response in this patient population and that the results “may make clinicians rethink how they introduce treatments.

“By emphasizing their belief that a treatment may work, clinicians can harness the placebo effect,” Dr. van Tilburg, professor of medicine and vice chair of research at Marshall University, Huntington, W.Va., told this news organization.

Study leader Samuel Nurko, MD, MPH, the director of the functional abdominal pain program at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said placebo-controlled trials in patients with IBS and functional abdominal pain consistently show a “very high placebo response.” The question his group set out to answer, he said, was: “Can we get the pain symptoms of these children better by giving them placebo with no deception?”

Between 2015 and 2018, Dr. Nurko and colleagues randomly assigned 30 children and adolescents, aged 8-18 years, with IBS or functional abdominal pain to receive either an open-label inert liquid placebo – consisting of 85% sucrose, citric acid, purified water, and the preservative methyl paraben – twice daily for 3 weeks followed by 3 weeks with no placebo, or to follow the reverse sequence. Roughly half (53%) of the children had functional abdominal pain, and 47% had IBS as defined by Rome III criteria.

Researchers at the three participating clinical sites followed a standardized protocol for explaining the nature of placebo (“like sugar pills without medication”), telling participants that adults with conditions like theirs often benefit from placebo when they receive it as part of blinded, randomized clinical trials. Participants in the study were allowed to use hyoscyamine, an anticholinergic medication, as rescue treatment during the trial.

Dr. Nurko’s team reported that patients had a mean pain score of 39.9 on a 100-point visual analogue scale during the open-label placebo phase of the trial and a mean score of 45 during the control period. That difference was statistically significant (P = .03).

Participants took an average of two hyoscyamine pills during the placebo phase, compared with 3.8 pills during the 3-week period when they did not receive placebo (P < .001).

Nearly three-fourths (73.3%) of children in the study reported that open-label placebo improved their pain by over 30%, thus meeting one of the FDA’s criteria for clinical evaluation of drugs for IBS. Half said the placebo liquid cut their pain by more than 50%.

Dr. Nurko said the findings highlight the need to address “mind-body connections” in the management of gut-brain disorders. Like Dr. van Tilburg, he cautioned that open-label placebo “is not ready for widespread use. Placebo is complicated, and we need to understand the mechanism” underlying its efficacy.

“The idea is eventually we will be able to sort out the exact mechanism and harness it for clinical practice,” he added.

However, Dr. van Tilburg expressed that using placebo therapy to treat children and adolescents with these conditions could send the message that “the pain is not real or all in their heads. Children with chronic pain encounter a lot of stigma, and this kind of treatment may increase the feeling of not being believed. We should be careful to avoid this.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Schwartz family fund, the Foundation for the Science of the Therapeutic Relationship, and the Morgan Family Foundation.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down – but what if the sugar is the medicine?

Nearly three in four children with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) or unexplained abdominal pain reported at least a 30% improvement in discomfort after taking a regimen of sugar water they knew had no medicinal properties.

The findings, published online in JAMA Pediatrics on Jan. 31, 2022, also revealed that participants used significantly less rescue medications when taking the so-called “open-label placebo.” The magnitude of the effect was enough to meet one of the criteria from the Food and Drug Administration to approve drugs to treat IBS, which affects between 10% and 15% of U.S. children.

Although open-label placebo is not ready for clinical use, IBS expert Miranda van Tilburg, PhD, said she is “glad we have evidence” of a strong response in this patient population and that the results “may make clinicians rethink how they introduce treatments.

“By emphasizing their belief that a treatment may work, clinicians can harness the placebo effect,” Dr. van Tilburg, professor of medicine and vice chair of research at Marshall University, Huntington, W.Va., told this news organization.

Study leader Samuel Nurko, MD, MPH, the director of the functional abdominal pain program at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said placebo-controlled trials in patients with IBS and functional abdominal pain consistently show a “very high placebo response.” The question his group set out to answer, he said, was: “Can we get the pain symptoms of these children better by giving them placebo with no deception?”

Between 2015 and 2018, Dr. Nurko and colleagues randomly assigned 30 children and adolescents, aged 8-18 years, with IBS or functional abdominal pain to receive either an open-label inert liquid placebo – consisting of 85% sucrose, citric acid, purified water, and the preservative methyl paraben – twice daily for 3 weeks followed by 3 weeks with no placebo, or to follow the reverse sequence. Roughly half (53%) of the children had functional abdominal pain, and 47% had IBS as defined by Rome III criteria.

Researchers at the three participating clinical sites followed a standardized protocol for explaining the nature of placebo (“like sugar pills without medication”), telling participants that adults with conditions like theirs often benefit from placebo when they receive it as part of blinded, randomized clinical trials. Participants in the study were allowed to use hyoscyamine, an anticholinergic medication, as rescue treatment during the trial.

Dr. Nurko’s team reported that patients had a mean pain score of 39.9 on a 100-point visual analogue scale during the open-label placebo phase of the trial and a mean score of 45 during the control period. That difference was statistically significant (P = .03).

Participants took an average of two hyoscyamine pills during the placebo phase, compared with 3.8 pills during the 3-week period when they did not receive placebo (P < .001).

Nearly three-fourths (73.3%) of children in the study reported that open-label placebo improved their pain by over 30%, thus meeting one of the FDA’s criteria for clinical evaluation of drugs for IBS. Half said the placebo liquid cut their pain by more than 50%.

Dr. Nurko said the findings highlight the need to address “mind-body connections” in the management of gut-brain disorders. Like Dr. van Tilburg, he cautioned that open-label placebo “is not ready for widespread use. Placebo is complicated, and we need to understand the mechanism” underlying its efficacy.

“The idea is eventually we will be able to sort out the exact mechanism and harness it for clinical practice,” he added.

However, Dr. van Tilburg expressed that using placebo therapy to treat children and adolescents with these conditions could send the message that “the pain is not real or all in their heads. Children with chronic pain encounter a lot of stigma, and this kind of treatment may increase the feeling of not being believed. We should be careful to avoid this.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Schwartz family fund, the Foundation for the Science of the Therapeutic Relationship, and the Morgan Family Foundation.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Men with hypersexual disorder showed higher levels of oxytocin in their blood than did healthy control men without the disorder, in a study with 102 participants.

Hypersexual disorder (HD) is characterized by “excessive and persistent sexual behaviors in relation to various mood states, with an impulsivity component and experienced loss of control,” John Flanagan, MD, of the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm and colleagues wrote. Although HD is not included as a separate diagnosis in the current DSM, the similar disorder of compulsive sexual behavior is included in the ICD.

Data on the pathophysiology of HD are limited, although a previous study by corresponding author Andreas Chatzittofis, MD, and colleagues showed evidence of neuroendocrine dysregulation in men with HD, and prompted the current study to explore the possible involvement of the oxytocinergic system in HD.

In the current study, published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, the researchers identified 64 men with HD and 38 healthy male controls. The patients were help-seeking men older than 18 years diagnosed with HD who presented to a single center in Sweden during 2013-2014. The men were included in a randomized clinical trial of cognitive-behavioral therapy for HD, and 30 of them participated in a 7-week CBT program.

Oxytocin, secreted by the pituitary gland, is known to play a role in sexual behavior, but has not been examined in HD men, the researchers said. At baseline, the mean plasma oxytocin was 31.0 pM in the HD patients, which was significantly higher than the mean 16.9 pM in healthy controls (P < .001). However, the 30 HD men who underwent CBT showed significant improvement in oxytocin levels, from a mean pretreatment level of 30.5 to a mean posttreatment level of 20.2 pM (P = .0000019).

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of data on oxytocin for a wait list or control group, as well as the inability to control for confounding factors such as diet, physical activity, ethnicity, and stress, and a lack of data on sexual activity prior to oxytocin measurements, the researchers noted.

However, “although there is no clear consensus at this point, previous studies support the use of oxytocin plasma levels as a surrogate variable for [cerebrospinal fluid] oxytocin activity,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. The current study findings support the potential of oxytocin as a biomarker for HD diagnostics and also as a measure of disease severity. Larger studies to confirm the findings, especially those that exclude potential confounders, would be valuable.

Oxytocin may be treatment target

The study is important because of the lack of knowledge regarding the pathophysiology underlying hypersexual disorder, Dr. Chatzittofis of the University of Cyprus, Nicosia, said in an interview. “This is the first study to indicate a role for oxytocin’s involvement” in hypersexual disorder in men. Dr. Chatzittofis led a team in a previous study that showed an association between HD in men and dysregulation of the hypothalamic pituitary adrenal axis.

In the current study, “we discovered that men with compulsive sexual behavior disorder had higher oxytocin levels, compared with healthy men,” said Dr. Chatzittofis, adding that the take-home message for clinicians is the potential of CBT for treatment. “Cognitive-behavior therapy led to a reduction in both hypersexual behavior and oxytocin levels.” The results suggest that oxytocin plays an important role in sex addiction.

Consequently, oxytocin may be a potential drug target for future pharmacologic treatment of hypersexual disorder, he added.

The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, the Stockholm County Council, and by a partnership between Umeå University and Västerbotten County Council. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Men with hypersexual disorder showed higher levels of oxytocin in their blood than did healthy control men without the disorder, in a study with 102 participants.

Hypersexual disorder (HD) is characterized by “excessive and persistent sexual behaviors in relation to various mood states, with an impulsivity component and experienced loss of control,” John Flanagan, MD, of the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm and colleagues wrote. Although HD is not included as a separate diagnosis in the current DSM, the similar disorder of compulsive sexual behavior is included in the ICD.

Data on the pathophysiology of HD are limited, although a previous study by corresponding author Andreas Chatzittofis, MD, and colleagues showed evidence of neuroendocrine dysregulation in men with HD, and prompted the current study to explore the possible involvement of the oxytocinergic system in HD.

In the current study, published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, the researchers identified 64 men with HD and 38 healthy male controls. The patients were help-seeking men older than 18 years diagnosed with HD who presented to a single center in Sweden during 2013-2014. The men were included in a randomized clinical trial of cognitive-behavioral therapy for HD, and 30 of them participated in a 7-week CBT program.

Oxytocin, secreted by the pituitary gland, is known to play a role in sexual behavior, but has not been examined in HD men, the researchers said. At baseline, the mean plasma oxytocin was 31.0 pM in the HD patients, which was significantly higher than the mean 16.9 pM in healthy controls (P < .001). However, the 30 HD men who underwent CBT showed significant improvement in oxytocin levels, from a mean pretreatment level of 30.5 to a mean posttreatment level of 20.2 pM (P = .0000019).

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of data on oxytocin for a wait list or control group, as well as the inability to control for confounding factors such as diet, physical activity, ethnicity, and stress, and a lack of data on sexual activity prior to oxytocin measurements, the researchers noted.

However, “although there is no clear consensus at this point, previous studies support the use of oxytocin plasma levels as a surrogate variable for [cerebrospinal fluid] oxytocin activity,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. The current study findings support the potential of oxytocin as a biomarker for HD diagnostics and also as a measure of disease severity. Larger studies to confirm the findings, especially those that exclude potential confounders, would be valuable.

Oxytocin may be treatment target

The study is important because of the lack of knowledge regarding the pathophysiology underlying hypersexual disorder, Dr. Chatzittofis of the University of Cyprus, Nicosia, said in an interview. “This is the first study to indicate a role for oxytocin’s involvement” in hypersexual disorder in men. Dr. Chatzittofis led a team in a previous study that showed an association between HD in men and dysregulation of the hypothalamic pituitary adrenal axis.

In the current study, “we discovered that men with compulsive sexual behavior disorder had higher oxytocin levels, compared with healthy men,” said Dr. Chatzittofis, adding that the take-home message for clinicians is the potential of CBT for treatment. “Cognitive-behavior therapy led to a reduction in both hypersexual behavior and oxytocin levels.” The results suggest that oxytocin plays an important role in sex addiction.

Consequently, oxytocin may be a potential drug target for future pharmacologic treatment of hypersexual disorder, he added.

The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, the Stockholm County Council, and by a partnership between Umeå University and Västerbotten County Council. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Men with hypersexual disorder showed higher levels of oxytocin in their blood than did healthy control men without the disorder, in a study with 102 participants.

Hypersexual disorder (HD) is characterized by “excessive and persistent sexual behaviors in relation to various mood states, with an impulsivity component and experienced loss of control,” John Flanagan, MD, of the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm and colleagues wrote. Although HD is not included as a separate diagnosis in the current DSM, the similar disorder of compulsive sexual behavior is included in the ICD.

Data on the pathophysiology of HD are limited, although a previous study by corresponding author Andreas Chatzittofis, MD, and colleagues showed evidence of neuroendocrine dysregulation in men with HD, and prompted the current study to explore the possible involvement of the oxytocinergic system in HD.

In the current study, published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, the researchers identified 64 men with HD and 38 healthy male controls. The patients were help-seeking men older than 18 years diagnosed with HD who presented to a single center in Sweden during 2013-2014. The men were included in a randomized clinical trial of cognitive-behavioral therapy for HD, and 30 of them participated in a 7-week CBT program.

Oxytocin, secreted by the pituitary gland, is known to play a role in sexual behavior, but has not been examined in HD men, the researchers said. At baseline, the mean plasma oxytocin was 31.0 pM in the HD patients, which was significantly higher than the mean 16.9 pM in healthy controls (P < .001). However, the 30 HD men who underwent CBT showed significant improvement in oxytocin levels, from a mean pretreatment level of 30.5 to a mean posttreatment level of 20.2 pM (P = .0000019).

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of data on oxytocin for a wait list or control group, as well as the inability to control for confounding factors such as diet, physical activity, ethnicity, and stress, and a lack of data on sexual activity prior to oxytocin measurements, the researchers noted.

However, “although there is no clear consensus at this point, previous studies support the use of oxytocin plasma levels as a surrogate variable for [cerebrospinal fluid] oxytocin activity,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. The current study findings support the potential of oxytocin as a biomarker for HD diagnostics and also as a measure of disease severity. Larger studies to confirm the findings, especially those that exclude potential confounders, would be valuable.

Oxytocin may be treatment target

The study is important because of the lack of knowledge regarding the pathophysiology underlying hypersexual disorder, Dr. Chatzittofis of the University of Cyprus, Nicosia, said in an interview. “This is the first study to indicate a role for oxytocin’s involvement” in hypersexual disorder in men. Dr. Chatzittofis led a team in a previous study that showed an association between HD in men and dysregulation of the hypothalamic pituitary adrenal axis.

In the current study, “we discovered that men with compulsive sexual behavior disorder had higher oxytocin levels, compared with healthy men,” said Dr. Chatzittofis, adding that the take-home message for clinicians is the potential of CBT for treatment. “Cognitive-behavior therapy led to a reduction in both hypersexual behavior and oxytocin levels.” The results suggest that oxytocin plays an important role in sex addiction.

Consequently, oxytocin may be a potential drug target for future pharmacologic treatment of hypersexual disorder, he added.

The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, the Stockholm County Council, and by a partnership between Umeå University and Västerbotten County Council. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.