Pain

CASE

Marcelo G* is a 46-year-old man who presented to our family medicine clinic with a complex medical history including end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and hemodialysis, chronic anemia, peripheral vascular disease, venous thromboembolism and anticoagulation, major depressive disorder, osteoarthritis, and lumbosacral radiculopathy. His current medications included vitamin B complex, cholecalciferol, atorvastatin, warfarin, acetaminophen, diclofenac gel, and capsaicin cream. Mr. G reported bothersome bilateral knee and back pain despite physical therapy and consistent use of his current medications in addition to occasional intra-articular glucocorticoid injections. He mentioned that he had benefited in the past from intermittent opioid use.

How would you manage this patient’s care?

*The patient’s name has been changed to protect his identity.

In 2013, an estimated 191 million prescriptions for ­opioids were written by health care providers, which is the equivalent of all adults living in the United States having their own opioid prescription.¹ This large expansion in opioid prescribing and use has also led to a rise in opioid overdose deaths, whether from prescribed or illicit use.¹ The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) points out that each day, approximately 128 Americans die from an opioid overdose.¹ Deaths that occur from opioid overdose often involve the prescribed opioids methadone, oxycodone, and hydrocodone, the illicit opioid heroin, and, of particular concern, prescription and illicit fentanyl.¹

IMAGE: © JOE GORMAN

Family physicians write more opioid prescriptions than any other specialty, and they are therefore uniquely positioned to protect patients, improve the quality of their care, and ultimately produce a meaningful public health impact.

The extent of this problem has sparked the development of health safety initiatives and research efforts. Through production quotas, the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) reduced the number of opioids produced across all schedule I and schedule II lists in 2017 by as much as 25%.² The DEA again reduced the amounts produced in 2018.³ For 2020, the DEA has determined that the production quotas and assessment of annual needs are sufficient.⁴

The CDC has also promoted access to naloxone and prevention initiatives; pharmacies in some states have standing orders for naloxone, and medical personnel and law enforcement now carry it.^1,5 Finally, new research has identified risk factors that influence one’s potential for addiction, such as mental illness, history of substance and alcohol abuse, and a low income.⁶ Interestingly, while numerous initiatives and strategies have been implemented across health systems, there is little evidence that demonstrates how implementation of safe prescribing strategies has affected overall patient safety and avoidance of opioid-related harms.

Nevertheless, concerns related to ­opioids are especially important for primary care ­providers, who manage many patients with acute and chronic diseases and disorders that require pain control.⁷ Family physicians write more opioid prescriptions than any ­other specialty,⁸ and they are therefore uniquely positioned to protect patients, improve the quality of their care, and ultimately produce a meaningful public health impact. This article provides a guide to safe opioid prescribing.

Continue to: Use the patient interview to ensure that Tx aligns with patient goals

For patients presenting with chronic pain, conduct a complete general history and physical examination that includes a review of available records; a medical, surgical, social, family, medication, and allergy history; a review of systems; and documentation of any psychiatric comorbidities (ie, depression, anxiety, psychiatric disorders, personality traits). Inquiries about social history and current medications should explore the possibility of previous and current substance use and misuse.

While causes of pain can be assessed through physical examination and diagnostic tests, the patient interview is an invaluable source of information. No single means of assessment has consistently demonstrated superiority over another in measuring pain, and numerous standard assessment tools are available (TABLE 1^9-13).¹⁴ Unidimensional tools are often easy and quick ways to assess pain intensity. Multidimensional tools, although more time intensive, are designed to gather more subjective information about the patient’s pain. Finally, use an instrument such as the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) to screen patients for psychological distress.^15,16

Use state prescription drug monitoring programs and urine drug testing to confirm patient compliance.

Provide an environment for patients to openly discuss their experiences, expectations, preferences, fears, and coping efforts, as well as the impact that pain has had on their lives.^17,18 Without this foundational understanding, medical treatment may work against the patient’s goals. An empathic approach allows for effective communication, shared decision making, and ultimately, an avenue for individualized therapy.

Balancing treatment with risk mitigation

The challenge of managing chronic pain is to balance treating the patient with the basic principle of nonmaleficence (primum non nocere: “first, do no harm”). The literature has shown that risk factors such as a family history of substance abuse or sexual abuse, younger age, and psychological disease may be linked to greater risk for opioid misuse.^19,20 However, despite the many risk-screening tools available, no single instrument has reliably and accurately predicted those at higher propensity for prescription addiction. In fact, risk-screening tools as a whole remain unregulated by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other authorities.²¹ Still, screening tools provide useful information as one component of the risk-mitigation process.

Screening tools. The tools most commonly used clinically to stratify risk prior to prescribing opioids are the 5-item Opioid Risk Tool (ORT),²² the revised 24-item Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain (SOAPP-R),²³ which are patient self-administered assessments, and the 7-item clinician-administered DIRE (Diagnosis, Intractability, Risk, Efficacy).²⁴ Given the subtle differences in criteria and the time required for each of these risk assessments, we recommend choosing one based on site-specific resources and overall clinician comfort.²⁵ Risk stratification helps to determine the optimal frequency and intensity of monitoring, not necessarily to deny care to “high-risk” patients.

Continue to: In fact, just as the "universal precautions"...

In fact, just as the “universal precautions” approach has been applied to infection control, many have suggested using a similar approach to pain management. Risk screening should never be misunderstood as an attempt to diminish or undermine the patient’s burden of pain. By routinely conducting thorough and respectful inquiries of risk factors for all patients, clinicians can reduce stigma, improve care, and contain overall risk.^26,27

Monitoring programs and patient agreements. In addition to risk-screening tools, the CDC recommends using state prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMP) and urine drug testing (UDT) data to confirm the use of prescribed and illicit substances.²⁸ All 50 states have implemented PDMPs.²⁹ Consider incorporating these components into controlled-substance agreements, which ultimately aim to promote safety and trust between patients and providers. Of course, such agreements do not eliminate all risks associated with opioid prescribing, nor do they guarantee the absence of adverse outcomes. However, when used correctly, they can provide safeguards to reduce misuse and abuse. They also have the potential to preserve the patient-provider relationship, as opposed to providers cursorily refusing to prescribe opioids altogether. The term “controlled-substance agreement” is preferable to “pain contract” or “narcotic contract” as the latter 2 terms may feel stigmatizing and threatening.³⁰

Risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS). In an effort to ensure that benefits of opioid analgesics continue to outweigh the risks, the FDA approved the extended-release (ER)/long-acting (LA) opioid analgesics shared system REMS. Under this REMS, a consortium of ER/LA opioid manufacturers is mandated to provide prescriber education in the form of accredited continuing education and patient educational materials, available at https://opioidanalgesicrems.com/RpcUI/home.u.

CASE

After reviewing Mr. G’s chart and conducting a history, we learned that his bilateral knee osteoarthritis was atraumatic and likely due to overuse—although possibly affected by major trauma in a motor vehicle accident 5 years earlier. Imaging also revealed multilevel disc degeneration contributing to his radicular back pain, which seemed to be worse on days after working as a caterer. Poor lifting form at work may have contributed to his pain. Nevertheless, he had been consistent with medical follow-up and denied current or past use of illicit substances. Per the numeric rating scale (NRS), he reported 8 out of 10 pain in his knees and 6 out of 10 in his back. In addition to obtaining a PHQ-9 score of 4, we conducted a DIRE assessment and obtained a score of 19 out of a possible 21, indicating that he may be a good candidate for long-term opioid analgesia.

Criteria for prescribing opioids and for guiding treatment goals

Prescribing an opioid requires establishing a medical necessity based on 3 criteria:³¹

• pain of moderate-to-severe degree
• a physical diagnosis or suspected organic problem
• documented treatment failure of a noncontrolled substance, adjuvant agents, physician-ordered physical therapy, structured exercise program, and interventional techniques.

Continue to: Treatment goals should be established...

Treatment goals should be established and understood by the prescriber and patient prior to initiation of opioids.²⁸ Overarching treatment goals for all opioids prescribed are pain relief (but not necessarily a focus on pain scores), improvement in functional activity, and minimization of adverse effects, with the latter 2 goals taking precedence.³¹ To assess outcomes, formally measure progress toward goals from baseline evaluations. This can be achieved through repeated use of validated tools such as those mentioned earlier, or may be more broadly considered as progress toward employment status or increasing participation in activities.³¹ All pain management plans involving opioids should include continued efforts with nonpharmacologic therapy (eg, exercise therapy, weight loss, behavioral training) and nonopioid pharmacologic therapy (eg, nonsteroidal anti-­inflammatory drugs, tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, anticonvulsants).²⁸

Have an “exit strategy.” As part of goal setting, also consider how therapy will be discontinued if benefits do not outweigh the risks of harm.²⁸ Weigh functional status gains against adverse opioid consequences using the PEG scale (pain, enjoyment of life, and general activity) (TABLE 2³²).³³ Improvements of 30% from baseline have been deemed clinically meaningful by some,³² but not all benefits will be easy to quantify. At the start of treatment dialogue, use the term “therapeutic trial” instead of ”treatment plan” to more effectively convey that opioids will be continued only if safe and effective, and will be prescribed at the lowest effective dose as one component of the multimodal approach to pain.³⁰

Initiation of treatment: Opioid selection and dosing

When initiating opioid therapy, prescribe an immediate-release, short-acting agent instead of an ER/LA formulation.²⁸

For moderate pain, first consider tramadol, codeine, tapentadol, or hydrocodone.³¹ Second-line agents for moderate pain are hydrocodone or oxycodone.³¹

For severe pain, first-line agents include hydrocodone, oxycodone, hydromorphone, or morphine.³¹ Second-line agents for severe pain are fentanyl and, with careful supervision or referral to a pain specialist, methadone or buprenorphine.³¹

Continue to: Of special note...

Of special note, methadone should not be the first choice for ER/LA opioid due to its unique long half-life and ability to prolong the QT interval.³⁴ Only clinicians familiar with its use should prescribe methadone, while referring to the drug’s clinical practice guideline for further advice.

At the start, prescribe the lowest effective dosage (referring to the product labeling for guidance) and calculate total daily dose in terms of morphine milligram equivalents (MME) (TABLE 3^35-37).²⁸ Exercise caution when considering opioids for patients with respiratory sleep disorders and for patients ≥ 65 years due to altered pharmacokinetics in the elderly population.³⁸ Also make dose adjustments for renal and hepatic insufficiency (TABLE 4³⁵).

All pain management involving opioids should include nonpharmacologic components, such as exercise and weight loss.

Doses between 20 to 50 MME/d are considered relatively low dosages.²⁸ Be cautious when prescribing an opioid at any dosage, and reassess evidence of individual benefits and risks before increasing the dosage to ≥ 50 MME/d.²⁸ Regard a dosage of 90 MME/d as maximal.²⁸ While there is no analgesic ceiling, doses greater than 90 MME/d are associated with risk for overdose and should prompt referral to a pain specialist.³¹ Veterans Administration guidelines cite strong evidence that risk for overdose and death significantly increases at a range of 20 to 50 MME/d.³³ Daily doses exceeding 90 MME/d should be documented with rational justification.²⁸

CASE

Noncontrolled medications are preferred in the treatment of chronic pain. However, the utility of adjuvant options such as NSAIDs, duloxetine, or gabapentin were limited in Mr. G’s case due to his ESRD. Calcium channel α2-δ ligands may have been effective in reducing symptoms of neuropathic pain but would have had limited efficacy against osteoarthritis. Based on his low risk for opioid misuse, we decided to start Mr. G on oxycodone 2.5 mg PO, every 6 hours as needed for moderate-to-severe pain, and to follow up in 1 month. We also explained proper lifting form to him and encouraged him to continue with physical therapy.

Deciding to continue therapy with opioids

There is a lack of convincing evidence that opioid use beyond 6 months improves quality of life; patients do not report a significant reduction in pain beyond this time.²⁸ Thus, a repeat evaluation of continued medical necessity is essential before deciding in favor of ongoing, long-term treatment with opioids. Continue prescribing opioids only if there is meaningful pain relief and improved function that outweighs the harms that may be expected for a given patient.³¹ With all patients, consider prescribing naloxone to accompany dispensed opioid prescriptions.²⁸ This is particularly important for those at risk for misuse (history of overdose, history of substance use disorder, dosages ≥ 50 MME/d, or concurrent benzodiazepine use). Resources for prescribing naloxone in primary care settings can be found through Prescribe to Prevent at http://prescribetoprevent.org. Due to the established risk of overdose, avoid, if possible, concomitant prescriptions of benzodiazepines and opioids.³¹

Continue to: Follow-up and monitoring

Responsiveness to opioids varies greatly among individuals.^38,39 An opioid that leads to a therapeutic analgesic effect in one patient may cause adverse events or toxicity in another. Periodically reassess the appropriateness of chronic opioid therapy and modify treatment based on its ability to meet therapeutic goals. While practice behaviors and clinic policies vary across institutions, risk stratification can provide guidance on the frequency and intensity of follow-up and monitoring. Kaye et al²¹ describe a triage system in which low-risk patients may be managed by a primary care provider with routine follow-up and reassessment every 3 months.²¹ Moderate-risk patients may warrant additional management by specialists and a monthly follow-up. High-risk patients may need referrals to interdisciplinary pain centers or addiction specialists.²¹

Along these lines, the CDC recommends conducting a PDMP review and UDT before initiating therapy, followed by a periodic PDMP (every 1-3 months) and a UDT at least annually. Keep in mind, providers should follow their state-specific regulations, as monitoring requirements may vary. In addition, clinicians should always be alert to adverse reactions (TABLE 4³⁵) and sudden behavior changes such as respiratory depression, nausea, constipation, pruritus, cognitive impairment, falls, motor vehicle accidents, and aberrant behaviors. Under these circumstances, consider a dose reduction and, in certain cases, discontinuation.

Additionally, in cases of pain unresponsive to escalating opioid doses, include opioid-induced hyperalgesia (OIH) in the differential. Dose reductions, opioid rotations, and office-based detoxifications are all options for the treatment of OIH.⁴⁰ Assessment of pain and function can be accomplished using the PEG scale (TABLE 2).³²

CASE

Two weeks into Mr. G’s initial regimen, he called to report no change in pain or functional status. We increased his dose to 5 mg PO every 6 hours as needed. At his 1-month follow-up appointment, he reported his pain as 6/10 and no adverse effects. We again increased his dose to 10 mg PO every 6 hours as needed, with follow-up in another month.

Discontinuation and tapering of opioids

Indications for discontinuing opioids are patient request, resolution of pain, doses ≥ 90 MME/d (in which case a pain specialist should be consulted), inadequate response, untoward adverse effects, and abuse and misuse.^1,31,41 However, providers may also face the challenge of working with patients for whom the benefit of opioid therapy is uncertain but who do not have an absolute contraindication. Guidance on this matter may be found in a 2017 systematic review of studies on reducing or discontinuing long-term opioid therapy.⁴² Although evidence on the whole was low quality, it showed that tapering or discontinuing opioids may actually reduce pain and improve function and quality of life.

Continue to: When working with a patient to taper treatment

When working with a patient to taper treatment, consider using a multidisciplinary approach. Also, assess the patient’s pain level and perception of needs for opioids, make clear the substantial effort that will be asked of the patient, and agree on coping strategies the patient can use to manage the taper.^31,43 While the evidence does not appear to support one tapering regimen over another, we can offer some recommendations on ways to individualize a tapering regimen (TABLE 5).^{1,31,41,43,44}

General recommendations. Gradually reduce the original MME dose by 5% to 10% every week to every 4 weeks, with frequent follow-up and adjustments as needed based on the individual’s response.^1,31,41,43 In the event that the patient does not tolerate this dose-reduction schedule, tapering can be slowed further.³¹ Avoid abrupt discontinuation.³³ Opioid abstinence syndrome, a myriad of symptoms caused by deprivation of opioids in physiologically dependent individuals, ­although rare, can occur during tapering and can be managed with clonidine 0.1 to 0.2 mg orally every 6 hours or transdermal clonidine patch 0.1 mg/24 hours weekly during the taper.³¹

Methadone should not be the first choice for an extended-release/long-acting opioid due to its long half-life and ability to prolong the QT interval.

Tapering of long-term opioid treatment is not without risk. Immediate risks include withdrawal syndrome, hyperalgesia, and dropout, while ongoing issues are potential relapse, problems in increasing and maintaining function, and medicolegal implications.⁴³ Withdrawal symptoms begin 2 to 3 half-lives after the last dose of opioid, and resolution varies depending on the duration of use, the most recent dose, and speed of tapering.⁴³ In general, a patient needs 20% to 25% of the previous day’s dose to prevent withdrawal symptoms.³¹ Increased pain appears to be a brief, time-limited occurance.⁴³ Dropout and relapse tend to be attributed to patient factors such as depressive symptoms and higher pain scores at initiation of the taper.⁴³ Low pain at the end of tapering has been shown to predict long-term abstinence from opioids.⁴³

CASE

Two months into his oxycodone regimen, Mr. G reported improved functional status at his catering job and overall improved quality of life. He had improved his lifting form and was attending biweekly physical therapy sessions. His pain score was 3/10. He expressed a desire to “not get hooked on opioids,” and mentioned he had “tried stopping the medicine last week” but experienced withdrawal symptoms. We discussed and prescribed the following 5-week taper plan: 2.5 mg reduction of oxycodone per dose, every 2 weeks x 2. Then 2.5 mg PO every 6 hours as needed x 1 week before stopping.

Organizing your approach

As part of goal setting, consider how therapy will be discontinued if benefits do not outweigh the risks of harm.

To optimize the chance for success in opioid treatment and to heighten vigilance and minimize harm to patients, we believe an organized approach is key (TABLE 6^{14,22-24,28,30-32}), particularly since this class of medication lacks strong evidence to support its long-term use.

CORRESPONDENCE 
Tracy Mahvan, PharmD, BCGP, University of Wyoming, School of Pharmacy, 1000 East University Avenue, Laramie, WY 82071; [email protected].

CASE

Marcelo G* is a 46-year-old man who presented to our family medicine clinic with a complex medical history including end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and hemodialysis, chronic anemia, peripheral vascular disease, venous thromboembolism and anticoagulation, major depressive disorder, osteoarthritis, and lumbosacral radiculopathy. His current medications included vitamin B complex, cholecalciferol, atorvastatin, warfarin, acetaminophen, diclofenac gel, and capsaicin cream. Mr. G reported bothersome bilateral knee and back pain despite physical therapy and consistent use of his current medications in addition to occasional intra-articular glucocorticoid injections. He mentioned that he had benefited in the past from intermittent opioid use.

How would you manage this patient’s care?

*The patient’s name has been changed to protect his identity.

In 2013, an estimated 191 million prescriptions for ­opioids were written by health care providers, which is the equivalent of all adults living in the United States having their own opioid prescription.¹ This large expansion in opioid prescribing and use has also led to a rise in opioid overdose deaths, whether from prescribed or illicit use.¹ The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) points out that each day, approximately 128 Americans die from an opioid overdose.¹ Deaths that occur from opioid overdose often involve the prescribed opioids methadone, oxycodone, and hydrocodone, the illicit opioid heroin, and, of particular concern, prescription and illicit fentanyl.¹

IMAGE: © JOE GORMAN

Family physicians write more opioid prescriptions than any other specialty, and they are therefore uniquely positioned to protect patients, improve the quality of their care, and ultimately produce a meaningful public health impact.

The extent of this problem has sparked the development of health safety initiatives and research efforts. Through production quotas, the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) reduced the number of opioids produced across all schedule I and schedule II lists in 2017 by as much as 25%.² The DEA again reduced the amounts produced in 2018.³ For 2020, the DEA has determined that the production quotas and assessment of annual needs are sufficient.⁴

The CDC has also promoted access to naloxone and prevention initiatives; pharmacies in some states have standing orders for naloxone, and medical personnel and law enforcement now carry it.^1,5 Finally, new research has identified risk factors that influence one’s potential for addiction, such as mental illness, history of substance and alcohol abuse, and a low income.⁶ Interestingly, while numerous initiatives and strategies have been implemented across health systems, there is little evidence that demonstrates how implementation of safe prescribing strategies has affected overall patient safety and avoidance of opioid-related harms.

Nevertheless, concerns related to ­opioids are especially important for primary care ­providers, who manage many patients with acute and chronic diseases and disorders that require pain control.⁷ Family physicians write more opioid prescriptions than any ­other specialty,⁸ and they are therefore uniquely positioned to protect patients, improve the quality of their care, and ultimately produce a meaningful public health impact. This article provides a guide to safe opioid prescribing.

Continue to: Use the patient interview to ensure that Tx aligns with patient goals

For patients presenting with chronic pain, conduct a complete general history and physical examination that includes a review of available records; a medical, surgical, social, family, medication, and allergy history; a review of systems; and documentation of any psychiatric comorbidities (ie, depression, anxiety, psychiatric disorders, personality traits). Inquiries about social history and current medications should explore the possibility of previous and current substance use and misuse.

While causes of pain can be assessed through physical examination and diagnostic tests, the patient interview is an invaluable source of information. No single means of assessment has consistently demonstrated superiority over another in measuring pain, and numerous standard assessment tools are available (TABLE 1^9-13).¹⁴ Unidimensional tools are often easy and quick ways to assess pain intensity. Multidimensional tools, although more time intensive, are designed to gather more subjective information about the patient’s pain. Finally, use an instrument such as the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) to screen patients for psychological distress.^15,16

Use state prescription drug monitoring programs and urine drug testing to confirm patient compliance.

Provide an environment for patients to openly discuss their experiences, expectations, preferences, fears, and coping efforts, as well as the impact that pain has had on their lives.^17,18 Without this foundational understanding, medical treatment may work against the patient’s goals. An empathic approach allows for effective communication, shared decision making, and ultimately, an avenue for individualized therapy.

Balancing treatment with risk mitigation

The challenge of managing chronic pain is to balance treating the patient with the basic principle of nonmaleficence (primum non nocere: “first, do no harm”). The literature has shown that risk factors such as a family history of substance abuse or sexual abuse, younger age, and psychological disease may be linked to greater risk for opioid misuse.^19,20 However, despite the many risk-screening tools available, no single instrument has reliably and accurately predicted those at higher propensity for prescription addiction. In fact, risk-screening tools as a whole remain unregulated by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other authorities.²¹ Still, screening tools provide useful information as one component of the risk-mitigation process.

Screening tools. The tools most commonly used clinically to stratify risk prior to prescribing opioids are the 5-item Opioid Risk Tool (ORT),²² the revised 24-item Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain (SOAPP-R),²³ which are patient self-administered assessments, and the 7-item clinician-administered DIRE (Diagnosis, Intractability, Risk, Efficacy).²⁴ Given the subtle differences in criteria and the time required for each of these risk assessments, we recommend choosing one based on site-specific resources and overall clinician comfort.²⁵ Risk stratification helps to determine the optimal frequency and intensity of monitoring, not necessarily to deny care to “high-risk” patients.

Continue to: In fact, just as the "universal precautions"...

In fact, just as the “universal precautions” approach has been applied to infection control, many have suggested using a similar approach to pain management. Risk screening should never be misunderstood as an attempt to diminish or undermine the patient’s burden of pain. By routinely conducting thorough and respectful inquiries of risk factors for all patients, clinicians can reduce stigma, improve care, and contain overall risk.^26,27

Monitoring programs and patient agreements. In addition to risk-screening tools, the CDC recommends using state prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMP) and urine drug testing (UDT) data to confirm the use of prescribed and illicit substances.²⁸ All 50 states have implemented PDMPs.²⁹ Consider incorporating these components into controlled-substance agreements, which ultimately aim to promote safety and trust between patients and providers. Of course, such agreements do not eliminate all risks associated with opioid prescribing, nor do they guarantee the absence of adverse outcomes. However, when used correctly, they can provide safeguards to reduce misuse and abuse. They also have the potential to preserve the patient-provider relationship, as opposed to providers cursorily refusing to prescribe opioids altogether. The term “controlled-substance agreement” is preferable to “pain contract” or “narcotic contract” as the latter 2 terms may feel stigmatizing and threatening.³⁰

Risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS). In an effort to ensure that benefits of opioid analgesics continue to outweigh the risks, the FDA approved the extended-release (ER)/long-acting (LA) opioid analgesics shared system REMS. Under this REMS, a consortium of ER/LA opioid manufacturers is mandated to provide prescriber education in the form of accredited continuing education and patient educational materials, available at https://opioidanalgesicrems.com/RpcUI/home.u.

CASE

After reviewing Mr. G’s chart and conducting a history, we learned that his bilateral knee osteoarthritis was atraumatic and likely due to overuse—although possibly affected by major trauma in a motor vehicle accident 5 years earlier. Imaging also revealed multilevel disc degeneration contributing to his radicular back pain, which seemed to be worse on days after working as a caterer. Poor lifting form at work may have contributed to his pain. Nevertheless, he had been consistent with medical follow-up and denied current or past use of illicit substances. Per the numeric rating scale (NRS), he reported 8 out of 10 pain in his knees and 6 out of 10 in his back. In addition to obtaining a PHQ-9 score of 4, we conducted a DIRE assessment and obtained a score of 19 out of a possible 21, indicating that he may be a good candidate for long-term opioid analgesia.

Criteria for prescribing opioids and for guiding treatment goals

Prescribing an opioid requires establishing a medical necessity based on 3 criteria:³¹

• pain of moderate-to-severe degree
• a physical diagnosis or suspected organic problem
• documented treatment failure of a noncontrolled substance, adjuvant agents, physician-ordered physical therapy, structured exercise program, and interventional techniques.

Continue to: Treatment goals should be established...

Treatment goals should be established and understood by the prescriber and patient prior to initiation of opioids.²⁸ Overarching treatment goals for all opioids prescribed are pain relief (but not necessarily a focus on pain scores), improvement in functional activity, and minimization of adverse effects, with the latter 2 goals taking precedence.³¹ To assess outcomes, formally measure progress toward goals from baseline evaluations. This can be achieved through repeated use of validated tools such as those mentioned earlier, or may be more broadly considered as progress toward employment status or increasing participation in activities.³¹ All pain management plans involving opioids should include continued efforts with nonpharmacologic therapy (eg, exercise therapy, weight loss, behavioral training) and nonopioid pharmacologic therapy (eg, nonsteroidal anti-­inflammatory drugs, tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, anticonvulsants).²⁸

Have an “exit strategy.” As part of goal setting, also consider how therapy will be discontinued if benefits do not outweigh the risks of harm.²⁸ Weigh functional status gains against adverse opioid consequences using the PEG scale (pain, enjoyment of life, and general activity) (TABLE 2³²).³³ Improvements of 30% from baseline have been deemed clinically meaningful by some,³² but not all benefits will be easy to quantify. At the start of treatment dialogue, use the term “therapeutic trial” instead of ”treatment plan” to more effectively convey that opioids will be continued only if safe and effective, and will be prescribed at the lowest effective dose as one component of the multimodal approach to pain.³⁰

Initiation of treatment: Opioid selection and dosing

When initiating opioid therapy, prescribe an immediate-release, short-acting agent instead of an ER/LA formulation.²⁸

For moderate pain, first consider tramadol, codeine, tapentadol, or hydrocodone.³¹ Second-line agents for moderate pain are hydrocodone or oxycodone.³¹

For severe pain, first-line agents include hydrocodone, oxycodone, hydromorphone, or morphine.³¹ Second-line agents for severe pain are fentanyl and, with careful supervision or referral to a pain specialist, methadone or buprenorphine.³¹

Continue to: Of special note...

Of special note, methadone should not be the first choice for ER/LA opioid due to its unique long half-life and ability to prolong the QT interval.³⁴ Only clinicians familiar with its use should prescribe methadone, while referring to the drug’s clinical practice guideline for further advice.

At the start, prescribe the lowest effective dosage (referring to the product labeling for guidance) and calculate total daily dose in terms of morphine milligram equivalents (MME) (TABLE 3^35-37).²⁸ Exercise caution when considering opioids for patients with respiratory sleep disorders and for patients ≥ 65 years due to altered pharmacokinetics in the elderly population.³⁸ Also make dose adjustments for renal and hepatic insufficiency (TABLE 4³⁵).

All pain management involving opioids should include nonpharmacologic components, such as exercise and weight loss.

Doses between 20 to 50 MME/d are considered relatively low dosages.²⁸ Be cautious when prescribing an opioid at any dosage, and reassess evidence of individual benefits and risks before increasing the dosage to ≥ 50 MME/d.²⁸ Regard a dosage of 90 MME/d as maximal.²⁸ While there is no analgesic ceiling, doses greater than 90 MME/d are associated with risk for overdose and should prompt referral to a pain specialist.³¹ Veterans Administration guidelines cite strong evidence that risk for overdose and death significantly increases at a range of 20 to 50 MME/d.³³ Daily doses exceeding 90 MME/d should be documented with rational justification.²⁸

CASE

Noncontrolled medications are preferred in the treatment of chronic pain. However, the utility of adjuvant options such as NSAIDs, duloxetine, or gabapentin were limited in Mr. G’s case due to his ESRD. Calcium channel α2-δ ligands may have been effective in reducing symptoms of neuropathic pain but would have had limited efficacy against osteoarthritis. Based on his low risk for opioid misuse, we decided to start Mr. G on oxycodone 2.5 mg PO, every 6 hours as needed for moderate-to-severe pain, and to follow up in 1 month. We also explained proper lifting form to him and encouraged him to continue with physical therapy.

Deciding to continue therapy with opioids

There is a lack of convincing evidence that opioid use beyond 6 months improves quality of life; patients do not report a significant reduction in pain beyond this time.²⁸ Thus, a repeat evaluation of continued medical necessity is essential before deciding in favor of ongoing, long-term treatment with opioids. Continue prescribing opioids only if there is meaningful pain relief and improved function that outweighs the harms that may be expected for a given patient.³¹ With all patients, consider prescribing naloxone to accompany dispensed opioid prescriptions.²⁸ This is particularly important for those at risk for misuse (history of overdose, history of substance use disorder, dosages ≥ 50 MME/d, or concurrent benzodiazepine use). Resources for prescribing naloxone in primary care settings can be found through Prescribe to Prevent at http://prescribetoprevent.org. Due to the established risk of overdose, avoid, if possible, concomitant prescriptions of benzodiazepines and opioids.³¹

Continue to: Follow-up and monitoring

Responsiveness to opioids varies greatly among individuals.^38,39 An opioid that leads to a therapeutic analgesic effect in one patient may cause adverse events or toxicity in another. Periodically reassess the appropriateness of chronic opioid therapy and modify treatment based on its ability to meet therapeutic goals. While practice behaviors and clinic policies vary across institutions, risk stratification can provide guidance on the frequency and intensity of follow-up and monitoring. Kaye et al²¹ describe a triage system in which low-risk patients may be managed by a primary care provider with routine follow-up and reassessment every 3 months.²¹ Moderate-risk patients may warrant additional management by specialists and a monthly follow-up. High-risk patients may need referrals to interdisciplinary pain centers or addiction specialists.²¹

Along these lines, the CDC recommends conducting a PDMP review and UDT before initiating therapy, followed by a periodic PDMP (every 1-3 months) and a UDT at least annually. Keep in mind, providers should follow their state-specific regulations, as monitoring requirements may vary. In addition, clinicians should always be alert to adverse reactions (TABLE 4³⁵) and sudden behavior changes such as respiratory depression, nausea, constipation, pruritus, cognitive impairment, falls, motor vehicle accidents, and aberrant behaviors. Under these circumstances, consider a dose reduction and, in certain cases, discontinuation.

Additionally, in cases of pain unresponsive to escalating opioid doses, include opioid-induced hyperalgesia (OIH) in the differential. Dose reductions, opioid rotations, and office-based detoxifications are all options for the treatment of OIH.⁴⁰ Assessment of pain and function can be accomplished using the PEG scale (TABLE 2).³²

CASE

Two weeks into Mr. G’s initial regimen, he called to report no change in pain or functional status. We increased his dose to 5 mg PO every 6 hours as needed. At his 1-month follow-up appointment, he reported his pain as 6/10 and no adverse effects. We again increased his dose to 10 mg PO every 6 hours as needed, with follow-up in another month.

Discontinuation and tapering of opioids

Indications for discontinuing opioids are patient request, resolution of pain, doses ≥ 90 MME/d (in which case a pain specialist should be consulted), inadequate response, untoward adverse effects, and abuse and misuse.^1,31,41 However, providers may also face the challenge of working with patients for whom the benefit of opioid therapy is uncertain but who do not have an absolute contraindication. Guidance on this matter may be found in a 2017 systematic review of studies on reducing or discontinuing long-term opioid therapy.⁴² Although evidence on the whole was low quality, it showed that tapering or discontinuing opioids may actually reduce pain and improve function and quality of life.

Continue to: When working with a patient to taper treatment

When working with a patient to taper treatment, consider using a multidisciplinary approach. Also, assess the patient’s pain level and perception of needs for opioids, make clear the substantial effort that will be asked of the patient, and agree on coping strategies the patient can use to manage the taper.^31,43 While the evidence does not appear to support one tapering regimen over another, we can offer some recommendations on ways to individualize a tapering regimen (TABLE 5).^{1,31,41,43,44}

General recommendations. Gradually reduce the original MME dose by 5% to 10% every week to every 4 weeks, with frequent follow-up and adjustments as needed based on the individual’s response.^1,31,41,43 In the event that the patient does not tolerate this dose-reduction schedule, tapering can be slowed further.³¹ Avoid abrupt discontinuation.³³ Opioid abstinence syndrome, a myriad of symptoms caused by deprivation of opioids in physiologically dependent individuals, ­although rare, can occur during tapering and can be managed with clonidine 0.1 to 0.2 mg orally every 6 hours or transdermal clonidine patch 0.1 mg/24 hours weekly during the taper.³¹

Methadone should not be the first choice for an extended-release/long-acting opioid due to its long half-life and ability to prolong the QT interval.

Tapering of long-term opioid treatment is not without risk. Immediate risks include withdrawal syndrome, hyperalgesia, and dropout, while ongoing issues are potential relapse, problems in increasing and maintaining function, and medicolegal implications.⁴³ Withdrawal symptoms begin 2 to 3 half-lives after the last dose of opioid, and resolution varies depending on the duration of use, the most recent dose, and speed of tapering.⁴³ In general, a patient needs 20% to 25% of the previous day’s dose to prevent withdrawal symptoms.³¹ Increased pain appears to be a brief, time-limited occurance.⁴³ Dropout and relapse tend to be attributed to patient factors such as depressive symptoms and higher pain scores at initiation of the taper.⁴³ Low pain at the end of tapering has been shown to predict long-term abstinence from opioids.⁴³

CASE

Two months into his oxycodone regimen, Mr. G reported improved functional status at his catering job and overall improved quality of life. He had improved his lifting form and was attending biweekly physical therapy sessions. His pain score was 3/10. He expressed a desire to “not get hooked on opioids,” and mentioned he had “tried stopping the medicine last week” but experienced withdrawal symptoms. We discussed and prescribed the following 5-week taper plan: 2.5 mg reduction of oxycodone per dose, every 2 weeks x 2. Then 2.5 mg PO every 6 hours as needed x 1 week before stopping.

Organizing your approach

As part of goal setting, consider how therapy will be discontinued if benefits do not outweigh the risks of harm.

To optimize the chance for success in opioid treatment and to heighten vigilance and minimize harm to patients, we believe an organized approach is key (TABLE 6^{14,22-24,28,30-32}), particularly since this class of medication lacks strong evidence to support its long-term use.

CORRESPONDENCE 
Tracy Mahvan, PharmD, BCGP, University of Wyoming, School of Pharmacy, 1000 East University Avenue, Laramie, WY 82071; [email protected].

CASE

Marcelo G* is a 46-year-old man who presented to our family medicine clinic with a complex medical history including end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and hemodialysis, chronic anemia, peripheral vascular disease, venous thromboembolism and anticoagulation, major depressive disorder, osteoarthritis, and lumbosacral radiculopathy. His current medications included vitamin B complex, cholecalciferol, atorvastatin, warfarin, acetaminophen, diclofenac gel, and capsaicin cream. Mr. G reported bothersome bilateral knee and back pain despite physical therapy and consistent use of his current medications in addition to occasional intra-articular glucocorticoid injections. He mentioned that he had benefited in the past from intermittent opioid use.

How would you manage this patient’s care?

*The patient’s name has been changed to protect his identity.

In 2013, an estimated 191 million prescriptions for ­opioids were written by health care providers, which is the equivalent of all adults living in the United States having their own opioid prescription.¹ This large expansion in opioid prescribing and use has also led to a rise in opioid overdose deaths, whether from prescribed or illicit use.¹ The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) points out that each day, approximately 128 Americans die from an opioid overdose.¹ Deaths that occur from opioid overdose often involve the prescribed opioids methadone, oxycodone, and hydrocodone, the illicit opioid heroin, and, of particular concern, prescription and illicit fentanyl.¹

IMAGE: © JOE GORMAN

Family physicians write more opioid prescriptions than any other specialty, and they are therefore uniquely positioned to protect patients, improve the quality of their care, and ultimately produce a meaningful public health impact.

The extent of this problem has sparked the development of health safety initiatives and research efforts. Through production quotas, the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) reduced the number of opioids produced across all schedule I and schedule II lists in 2017 by as much as 25%.² The DEA again reduced the amounts produced in 2018.³ For 2020, the DEA has determined that the production quotas and assessment of annual needs are sufficient.⁴

The CDC has also promoted access to naloxone and prevention initiatives; pharmacies in some states have standing orders for naloxone, and medical personnel and law enforcement now carry it.^1,5 Finally, new research has identified risk factors that influence one’s potential for addiction, such as mental illness, history of substance and alcohol abuse, and a low income.⁶ Interestingly, while numerous initiatives and strategies have been implemented across health systems, there is little evidence that demonstrates how implementation of safe prescribing strategies has affected overall patient safety and avoidance of opioid-related harms.

Nevertheless, concerns related to ­opioids are especially important for primary care ­providers, who manage many patients with acute and chronic diseases and disorders that require pain control.⁷ Family physicians write more opioid prescriptions than any ­other specialty,⁸ and they are therefore uniquely positioned to protect patients, improve the quality of their care, and ultimately produce a meaningful public health impact. This article provides a guide to safe opioid prescribing.

Continue to: Use the patient interview to ensure that Tx aligns with patient goals

For patients presenting with chronic pain, conduct a complete general history and physical examination that includes a review of available records; a medical, surgical, social, family, medication, and allergy history; a review of systems; and documentation of any psychiatric comorbidities (ie, depression, anxiety, psychiatric disorders, personality traits). Inquiries about social history and current medications should explore the possibility of previous and current substance use and misuse.

While causes of pain can be assessed through physical examination and diagnostic tests, the patient interview is an invaluable source of information. No single means of assessment has consistently demonstrated superiority over another in measuring pain, and numerous standard assessment tools are available (TABLE 1^9-13).¹⁴ Unidimensional tools are often easy and quick ways to assess pain intensity. Multidimensional tools, although more time intensive, are designed to gather more subjective information about the patient’s pain. Finally, use an instrument such as the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) to screen patients for psychological distress.^15,16

Use state prescription drug monitoring programs and urine drug testing to confirm patient compliance.

Provide an environment for patients to openly discuss their experiences, expectations, preferences, fears, and coping efforts, as well as the impact that pain has had on their lives.^17,18 Without this foundational understanding, medical treatment may work against the patient’s goals. An empathic approach allows for effective communication, shared decision making, and ultimately, an avenue for individualized therapy.

Balancing treatment with risk mitigation

The challenge of managing chronic pain is to balance treating the patient with the basic principle of nonmaleficence (primum non nocere: “first, do no harm”). The literature has shown that risk factors such as a family history of substance abuse or sexual abuse, younger age, and psychological disease may be linked to greater risk for opioid misuse.^19,20 However, despite the many risk-screening tools available, no single instrument has reliably and accurately predicted those at higher propensity for prescription addiction. In fact, risk-screening tools as a whole remain unregulated by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other authorities.²¹ Still, screening tools provide useful information as one component of the risk-mitigation process.

Screening tools. The tools most commonly used clinically to stratify risk prior to prescribing opioids are the 5-item Opioid Risk Tool (ORT),²² the revised 24-item Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain (SOAPP-R),²³ which are patient self-administered assessments, and the 7-item clinician-administered DIRE (Diagnosis, Intractability, Risk, Efficacy).²⁴ Given the subtle differences in criteria and the time required for each of these risk assessments, we recommend choosing one based on site-specific resources and overall clinician comfort.²⁵ Risk stratification helps to determine the optimal frequency and intensity of monitoring, not necessarily to deny care to “high-risk” patients.

Continue to: In fact, just as the "universal precautions"...

In fact, just as the “universal precautions” approach has been applied to infection control, many have suggested using a similar approach to pain management. Risk screening should never be misunderstood as an attempt to diminish or undermine the patient’s burden of pain. By routinely conducting thorough and respectful inquiries of risk factors for all patients, clinicians can reduce stigma, improve care, and contain overall risk.^26,27

Monitoring programs and patient agreements. In addition to risk-screening tools, the CDC recommends using state prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMP) and urine drug testing (UDT) data to confirm the use of prescribed and illicit substances.²⁸ All 50 states have implemented PDMPs.²⁹ Consider incorporating these components into controlled-substance agreements, which ultimately aim to promote safety and trust between patients and providers. Of course, such agreements do not eliminate all risks associated with opioid prescribing, nor do they guarantee the absence of adverse outcomes. However, when used correctly, they can provide safeguards to reduce misuse and abuse. They also have the potential to preserve the patient-provider relationship, as opposed to providers cursorily refusing to prescribe opioids altogether. The term “controlled-substance agreement” is preferable to “pain contract” or “narcotic contract” as the latter 2 terms may feel stigmatizing and threatening.³⁰

Risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS). In an effort to ensure that benefits of opioid analgesics continue to outweigh the risks, the FDA approved the extended-release (ER)/long-acting (LA) opioid analgesics shared system REMS. Under this REMS, a consortium of ER/LA opioid manufacturers is mandated to provide prescriber education in the form of accredited continuing education and patient educational materials, available at https://opioidanalgesicrems.com/RpcUI/home.u.

CASE

After reviewing Mr. G’s chart and conducting a history, we learned that his bilateral knee osteoarthritis was atraumatic and likely due to overuse—although possibly affected by major trauma in a motor vehicle accident 5 years earlier. Imaging also revealed multilevel disc degeneration contributing to his radicular back pain, which seemed to be worse on days after working as a caterer. Poor lifting form at work may have contributed to his pain. Nevertheless, he had been consistent with medical follow-up and denied current or past use of illicit substances. Per the numeric rating scale (NRS), he reported 8 out of 10 pain in his knees and 6 out of 10 in his back. In addition to obtaining a PHQ-9 score of 4, we conducted a DIRE assessment and obtained a score of 19 out of a possible 21, indicating that he may be a good candidate for long-term opioid analgesia.

Criteria for prescribing opioids and for guiding treatment goals

Prescribing an opioid requires establishing a medical necessity based on 3 criteria:³¹

• pain of moderate-to-severe degree
• a physical diagnosis or suspected organic problem
• documented treatment failure of a noncontrolled substance, adjuvant agents, physician-ordered physical therapy, structured exercise program, and interventional techniques.

Continue to: Treatment goals should be established...

Treatment goals should be established and understood by the prescriber and patient prior to initiation of opioids.²⁸ Overarching treatment goals for all opioids prescribed are pain relief (but not necessarily a focus on pain scores), improvement in functional activity, and minimization of adverse effects, with the latter 2 goals taking precedence.³¹ To assess outcomes, formally measure progress toward goals from baseline evaluations. This can be achieved through repeated use of validated tools such as those mentioned earlier, or may be more broadly considered as progress toward employment status or increasing participation in activities.³¹ All pain management plans involving opioids should include continued efforts with nonpharmacologic therapy (eg, exercise therapy, weight loss, behavioral training) and nonopioid pharmacologic therapy (eg, nonsteroidal anti-­inflammatory drugs, tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, anticonvulsants).²⁸

Have an “exit strategy.” As part of goal setting, also consider how therapy will be discontinued if benefits do not outweigh the risks of harm.²⁸ Weigh functional status gains against adverse opioid consequences using the PEG scale (pain, enjoyment of life, and general activity) (TABLE 2³²).³³ Improvements of 30% from baseline have been deemed clinically meaningful by some,³² but not all benefits will be easy to quantify. At the start of treatment dialogue, use the term “therapeutic trial” instead of ”treatment plan” to more effectively convey that opioids will be continued only if safe and effective, and will be prescribed at the lowest effective dose as one component of the multimodal approach to pain.³⁰

Initiation of treatment: Opioid selection and dosing

When initiating opioid therapy, prescribe an immediate-release, short-acting agent instead of an ER/LA formulation.²⁸

For moderate pain, first consider tramadol, codeine, tapentadol, or hydrocodone.³¹ Second-line agents for moderate pain are hydrocodone or oxycodone.³¹

For severe pain, first-line agents include hydrocodone, oxycodone, hydromorphone, or morphine.³¹ Second-line agents for severe pain are fentanyl and, with careful supervision or referral to a pain specialist, methadone or buprenorphine.³¹

Continue to: Of special note...

Of special note, methadone should not be the first choice for ER/LA opioid due to its unique long half-life and ability to prolong the QT interval.³⁴ Only clinicians familiar with its use should prescribe methadone, while referring to the drug’s clinical practice guideline for further advice.

At the start, prescribe the lowest effective dosage (referring to the product labeling for guidance) and calculate total daily dose in terms of morphine milligram equivalents (MME) (TABLE 3^35-37).²⁸ Exercise caution when considering opioids for patients with respiratory sleep disorders and for patients ≥ 65 years due to altered pharmacokinetics in the elderly population.³⁸ Also make dose adjustments for renal and hepatic insufficiency (TABLE 4³⁵).

All pain management involving opioids should include nonpharmacologic components, such as exercise and weight loss.

Doses between 20 to 50 MME/d are considered relatively low dosages.²⁸ Be cautious when prescribing an opioid at any dosage, and reassess evidence of individual benefits and risks before increasing the dosage to ≥ 50 MME/d.²⁸ Regard a dosage of 90 MME/d as maximal.²⁸ While there is no analgesic ceiling, doses greater than 90 MME/d are associated with risk for overdose and should prompt referral to a pain specialist.³¹ Veterans Administration guidelines cite strong evidence that risk for overdose and death significantly increases at a range of 20 to 50 MME/d.³³ Daily doses exceeding 90 MME/d should be documented with rational justification.²⁸

CASE

Noncontrolled medications are preferred in the treatment of chronic pain. However, the utility of adjuvant options such as NSAIDs, duloxetine, or gabapentin were limited in Mr. G’s case due to his ESRD. Calcium channel α2-δ ligands may have been effective in reducing symptoms of neuropathic pain but would have had limited efficacy against osteoarthritis. Based on his low risk for opioid misuse, we decided to start Mr. G on oxycodone 2.5 mg PO, every 6 hours as needed for moderate-to-severe pain, and to follow up in 1 month. We also explained proper lifting form to him and encouraged him to continue with physical therapy.

Deciding to continue therapy with opioids

There is a lack of convincing evidence that opioid use beyond 6 months improves quality of life; patients do not report a significant reduction in pain beyond this time.²⁸ Thus, a repeat evaluation of continued medical necessity is essential before deciding in favor of ongoing, long-term treatment with opioids. Continue prescribing opioids only if there is meaningful pain relief and improved function that outweighs the harms that may be expected for a given patient.³¹ With all patients, consider prescribing naloxone to accompany dispensed opioid prescriptions.²⁸ This is particularly important for those at risk for misuse (history of overdose, history of substance use disorder, dosages ≥ 50 MME/d, or concurrent benzodiazepine use). Resources for prescribing naloxone in primary care settings can be found through Prescribe to Prevent at http://prescribetoprevent.org. Due to the established risk of overdose, avoid, if possible, concomitant prescriptions of benzodiazepines and opioids.³¹

Continue to: Follow-up and monitoring

Responsiveness to opioids varies greatly among individuals.^38,39 An opioid that leads to a therapeutic analgesic effect in one patient may cause adverse events or toxicity in another. Periodically reassess the appropriateness of chronic opioid therapy and modify treatment based on its ability to meet therapeutic goals. While practice behaviors and clinic policies vary across institutions, risk stratification can provide guidance on the frequency and intensity of follow-up and monitoring. Kaye et al²¹ describe a triage system in which low-risk patients may be managed by a primary care provider with routine follow-up and reassessment every 3 months.²¹ Moderate-risk patients may warrant additional management by specialists and a monthly follow-up. High-risk patients may need referrals to interdisciplinary pain centers or addiction specialists.²¹

Along these lines, the CDC recommends conducting a PDMP review and UDT before initiating therapy, followed by a periodic PDMP (every 1-3 months) and a UDT at least annually. Keep in mind, providers should follow their state-specific regulations, as monitoring requirements may vary. In addition, clinicians should always be alert to adverse reactions (TABLE 4³⁵) and sudden behavior changes such as respiratory depression, nausea, constipation, pruritus, cognitive impairment, falls, motor vehicle accidents, and aberrant behaviors. Under these circumstances, consider a dose reduction and, in certain cases, discontinuation.

Additionally, in cases of pain unresponsive to escalating opioid doses, include opioid-induced hyperalgesia (OIH) in the differential. Dose reductions, opioid rotations, and office-based detoxifications are all options for the treatment of OIH.⁴⁰ Assessment of pain and function can be accomplished using the PEG scale (TABLE 2).³²

CASE

Two weeks into Mr. G’s initial regimen, he called to report no change in pain or functional status. We increased his dose to 5 mg PO every 6 hours as needed. At his 1-month follow-up appointment, he reported his pain as 6/10 and no adverse effects. We again increased his dose to 10 mg PO every 6 hours as needed, with follow-up in another month.

Discontinuation and tapering of opioids

Indications for discontinuing opioids are patient request, resolution of pain, doses ≥ 90 MME/d (in which case a pain specialist should be consulted), inadequate response, untoward adverse effects, and abuse and misuse.^1,31,41 However, providers may also face the challenge of working with patients for whom the benefit of opioid therapy is uncertain but who do not have an absolute contraindication. Guidance on this matter may be found in a 2017 systematic review of studies on reducing or discontinuing long-term opioid therapy.⁴² Although evidence on the whole was low quality, it showed that tapering or discontinuing opioids may actually reduce pain and improve function and quality of life.

Continue to: When working with a patient to taper treatment

When working with a patient to taper treatment, consider using a multidisciplinary approach. Also, assess the patient’s pain level and perception of needs for opioids, make clear the substantial effort that will be asked of the patient, and agree on coping strategies the patient can use to manage the taper.^31,43 While the evidence does not appear to support one tapering regimen over another, we can offer some recommendations on ways to individualize a tapering regimen (TABLE 5).^{1,31,41,43,44}

General recommendations. Gradually reduce the original MME dose by 5% to 10% every week to every 4 weeks, with frequent follow-up and adjustments as needed based on the individual’s response.^1,31,41,43 In the event that the patient does not tolerate this dose-reduction schedule, tapering can be slowed further.³¹ Avoid abrupt discontinuation.³³ Opioid abstinence syndrome, a myriad of symptoms caused by deprivation of opioids in physiologically dependent individuals, ­although rare, can occur during tapering and can be managed with clonidine 0.1 to 0.2 mg orally every 6 hours or transdermal clonidine patch 0.1 mg/24 hours weekly during the taper.³¹

Methadone should not be the first choice for an extended-release/long-acting opioid due to its long half-life and ability to prolong the QT interval.

Tapering of long-term opioid treatment is not without risk. Immediate risks include withdrawal syndrome, hyperalgesia, and dropout, while ongoing issues are potential relapse, problems in increasing and maintaining function, and medicolegal implications.⁴³ Withdrawal symptoms begin 2 to 3 half-lives after the last dose of opioid, and resolution varies depending on the duration of use, the most recent dose, and speed of tapering.⁴³ In general, a patient needs 20% to 25% of the previous day’s dose to prevent withdrawal symptoms.³¹ Increased pain appears to be a brief, time-limited occurance.⁴³ Dropout and relapse tend to be attributed to patient factors such as depressive symptoms and higher pain scores at initiation of the taper.⁴³ Low pain at the end of tapering has been shown to predict long-term abstinence from opioids.⁴³

CASE

Two months into his oxycodone regimen, Mr. G reported improved functional status at his catering job and overall improved quality of life. He had improved his lifting form and was attending biweekly physical therapy sessions. His pain score was 3/10. He expressed a desire to “not get hooked on opioids,” and mentioned he had “tried stopping the medicine last week” but experienced withdrawal symptoms. We discussed and prescribed the following 5-week taper plan: 2.5 mg reduction of oxycodone per dose, every 2 weeks x 2. Then 2.5 mg PO every 6 hours as needed x 1 week before stopping.

Organizing your approach

As part of goal setting, consider how therapy will be discontinued if benefits do not outweigh the risks of harm.

To optimize the chance for success in opioid treatment and to heighten vigilance and minimize harm to patients, we believe an organized approach is key (TABLE 6^{14,22-24,28,30-32}), particularly since this class of medication lacks strong evidence to support its long-term use.

CORRESPONDENCE 
Tracy Mahvan, PharmD, BCGP, University of Wyoming, School of Pharmacy, 1000 East University Avenue, Laramie, WY 82071; [email protected].

As the Food and Drug Administration focuses on other issues, companies, both big and small, are looking to boost physician and consumer interest in their “medical foods” – products that fall somewhere between drugs and supplements and promise to mitigate symptoms, or even address underlying pathologies, of a range of diseases.

Manufacturers now market an array of medical foods, ranging from powders and capsules for Alzheimer disease to low-protein spaghetti for chronic kidney disease (CKD). The FDA has not been completely absent; it takes a narrow view of what medical conditions qualify for treatment with food products and has warned some manufacturers that their misbranded products are acting more like unapproved drugs.

By the FDA’s definition, medical food is limited to products that provide crucial therapy for patients with inborn errors of metabolism (IEM). An example is specialized baby formula for infants with phenylketonuria. Unlike supplements, medical foods are supposed to be used under the supervision of a physician. This has prompted some sales reps to turn up in the clinic, and most manufacturers have online approval forms for doctors to sign. Manufacturers, advisers, and regulators were interviewed for a closer look at this burgeoning industry.
 

The market

The global market for medical foods – about $18 billion in 2019 – is expected to grow steadily in the near future. It is drawing more interest, especially in Europe, where medical foods are more accepted by physicians and consumers, Meghan Donnelly, MS, RDN, said in an interview. She is a registered dietitian who conducts physician outreach in the United States for Flavis, a division of Dr. Schär. That company, based in northern Italy, started out targeting IEMs but now also sells gluten-free foods for celiac disease and low-protein foods for CKD.

It is still a niche market in the United States – and isn’t likely to ever approach the size of the supplement market, according to Marcus Charuvastra, the managing director of Targeted Medical Pharma, which markets Theramine capsules for pain management, among many other products. But it could still be a big win for a manufacturer if they get a small slice of a big market, such as for Alzheimer disease.
 

Defining medical food

According to an update of the Orphan Drug Act in 1988, a medical food is “a food which is formulated to be consumed or administered enterally under the supervision of a physician and which is intended for the specific dietary management of a disease or condition for which distinctive nutritional requirements, based on recognized scientific principles, are established by medical evaluation.” The FDA issued regulations to accompany that law in 1993 but has since only issued a guidance document that is not legally binding.

Medical foods are not drugs and they are not supplements (the latter are intended only for healthy people). The FDA doesn’t require formal approval of a medical food, but, by law, the ingredients must be generally recognized as safe, and manufacturers must follow good manufacturing practices. However, the agency has taken a narrow view of what conditions require medical foods.

Policing medical foods hasn’t been a priority for the FDA, which is why there has been a proliferation of products that don’t meet the FDA’s view of the statutory definition of medical foods, according to Miriam Guggenheim, a food and drug law attorney in Washington, D.C. The FDA usually takes enforcement action when it sees a risk to the public’s health.

The agency’s stance has led to confusion – among manufacturers, physicians, consumers, and even regulators – making the market a kind of Wild West, according to Paul Hyman, a Washington, D.C.–based attorney who has represented medical food companies.

George A. Burdock, PhD, an Orlando-based regulatory consultant who has worked with medical food makers, believes the FDA will be forced to expand their narrow definition. He foresees a reconsideration of many medical food products in light of an October 2019 White House executive order prohibiting federal agencies from issuing guidance in lieu of rules.
 

Manufacturers and the FDA differ

One example of a product about which regulators and manufacturers differ is Theramine, which is described as “specially designed to supply the nervous system with the fuel it needs to meet the altered metabolic requirements of chronic pain and inflammatory disorders.”

It is not considered a medical food by the FDA, and the company has had numerous discussions with the agency about their diverging views, according to Mr. Charuvastra. “We’ve had our warning letters and we’ve had our sit downs, and we just had an inspection.”

Targeted Medical Pharma continues to market its products as medical foods but steers away from making any claims that they are like drugs, he said.

Confusion about medical foods has been exposed in the California Workers’ Compensation System by Leslie Wilson, PhD, and colleagues at the University of California, San Francisco. They found that physicians regularly wrote medical food prescriptions for non–FDA-approved uses and that the system reimbursed the majority of the products at a cost of $15.5 million from 2011 to 2013. More than half of these prescriptions were for Theramine.

Dr. Wilson reported that, for most products, no evidence supported effectiveness, and they were frequently mislabeled – for all 36 that were studied, submissions for reimbursement were made using a National Drug Code, an impossibility because medical foods are not drugs, and 14 were labeled “Rx only.”
 

Big-name companies joining in

The FDA does not keep a list of approved medical foods or manufacturers. Both small businesses and big food companies like Danone, Nestlé, and Abbott are players. Most products are sold online.

In the United States, Danone’s Nutricia division sells formulas and low-protein foods for IEMs. They also sell Ketocal, a powder or ready-to-drink liquid that is pitched as a balanced medical food to simplify and optimize the ketogenic diet for children with intractable epilepsy. Yet the FDA does not include epilepsy among the conditions that medical foods can treat.

Nestlé sells traditional medical foods for IEMs and also markets a range of what it calls nutritional therapies for such conditions as irritable bowel syndrome and dysphagia.

Nestlé is a minority shareholder in Axona, a product originally developed by Accera (Cerecin as of 2018). Jacquelyn Campo, senior director of global communications at Nestlé Health Sciences, said that the company is not actively involved in the operations management of Cerecin. However, on its website, Nestlé touts Axona, which is only available in the United States, as a “medical food” that “is intended for the clinical dietary management of mild to moderate Alzheimer disease.” The Axona site claims that the main ingredient, caprylic triglyceride, is broken down into ketones that provide fuel to treat cerebral hypometabolism, a precursor to Alzheimer disease. In a 2009 study, daily dosing of a preliminary formulation was associated with improved cognitive performance compared with placebo in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer disease.

In 2013, the FDA warned Accera that it was misbranding Axona as a medical food and that the therapeutic claims the company was making would make the product an unapproved drug. Ms. Campo said Nestlé is aware of the agency’s warning, but added, “to our knowledge, Cerecin provided answers to the issues raised by the FDA.”

With the goal of getting drug approval, Accera went on to test a tweaked formulation in a 400-patient randomized, placebo-controlled trial called NOURISH AD that ultimately failed. Nevertheless, Axona is still marketed as a medical food. It costs about $100 for a month’s supply.

Repeated requests for comment from Cerecin were not answered. Danielle Schor, an FDA spokesperson, said the agency will not discuss the status of individual products.
 

More disputes and insurance coverage

Mary Ann DeMarco, executive director of sales and marketing for the Scottsdale, Ariz.–based medical food maker Primus Pharmaceuticals, said the company believes its products fit within the FDA’s medical foods rubric.

These include Fosteum Plus capsules, which it markets “for the clinical dietary management of the metabolic processes of osteopenia and osteoporosis.” The capsules contain a combination of genistein, zinc, calcium, phosphate, vitamin K2, and vitamin D. As proof of effectiveness, the company cites clinical data on some of the ingredients – not the product itself.

Primus has run afoul of the FDA before when it similarly positioned another product, called Limbrel, as a medical food for osteoarthritis. From 2007 to 2017, the FDA received 194 adverse event reports associated with Limbrel, including reports of drug-induced liver injury, pancreatitis, and hypersensitivity pneumonitis. In December 2017, the agency urged Primus to recall Limbrel, a move that it said was “necessary to protect the public health and welfare.” Primus withdrew the product but laid out a defense of Limbrel on a devoted website.

The FDA would not comment any further, said Ms. Schor. Ms. DeMarco said that Primus is working with the FDA to bring Limbrel back to market.

A lack of insurance coverage – even for approved medical foods for IEMs – has frustrated advocates, parents, and manufacturers. They are putting their weight behind the Medical Nutrition Equity Act, which would mandate public and private payer coverage of medical foods for IEMs and digestive conditions such as Crohn disease. That 2019 House bill has 56 cosponsors; there is no Senate companion bill.

“If you can get reimbursement, it really makes the market,” for Primus and the other manufacturers, Mr. Hyman said.

Primus Pharmaceuticals has launched its own campaign, Cover My Medical Foods, to enlist consumers and others to the cause.
 

Partnering with advocates

Although its low-protein breads, pastas, and baking products are not considered medical foods by the FDA, Dr. Schär is marketing them as such in the United States. They are trying to make a mark in CKD, according to Ms. Donnelly. She added that Dr. Schär has been successful in Europe, where nutrition therapy is more integrated in the health care system.

In 2019, Flavis and the National Kidney Foundation joined forces to raise awareness of nutritional interventions and to build enthusiasm for the Flavis products. The partnership has now ended, mostly because Flavis could no longer afford it, according to Ms. Donnelly.

“Information on diet and nutrition is the most requested subject matter from the NKF,” said Anthony Gucciardo, senior vice president of strategic partnerships at the foundation. The partnership “has never been necessarily about promoting their products per se; it’s promoting a healthy diet and really a diet specific for CKD.”

The NKF developed cobranded materials on low-protein foods for physicians and a teaching tool they could use with patients. Consumers could access nutrition information and a discount on Flavis products on a dedicated webpage. The foundation didn’t describe the low-protein products as medical foods, said Mr. Gucciardo, even if Flavis promoted them as such.

In patients with CKD, dietary management can help prevent the progression to end-stage renal disease. Although Medicare covers medical nutrition therapy – in which patients receive personalized assessments and dietary advice – uptake is abysmally low, according to a 2018 study.

Dr. Burdock thinks low-protein foods for CKD do meet the FDA’s criteria for a medical food but that the agency might not necessarily agree with him. The FDA would not comment.
 

Physician beware

When it comes to medical foods, the FDA has often looked the other way because the ingredients may already have been proven safe and the danger to an individual or to the public’s health is relatively low, according to Dr. Burdock and Mr. Hyman.

However, if the agency “feels that a medical food will prevent people from seeking medical care or there is potential to defraud the public, it is justified in taking action against the company,” said Dr. Burdock.

According to Dr. Wilson, the pharmacist who reported on the inappropriate medical food prescriptions in the California system, the FDA could help by creating a list of approved medical foods. Physicians should take time to learn about the difference between medical foods and supplements, she said, adding that they should also not hesitate to “question the veracity of the claims for them.”

Ms. Guggenheim believed doctors need to know that, for the most part, these are not FDA-approved products. She emphasized the importance of evaluating the products and looking at the data of their impact on a disease or condition.

“Many of these companies strongly believe that the products work and help people, so clinicians need to be very data driven,” she said.

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

As the Food and Drug Administration focuses on other issues, companies, both big and small, are looking to boost physician and consumer interest in their “medical foods” – products that fall somewhere between drugs and supplements and promise to mitigate symptoms, or even address underlying pathologies, of a range of diseases.

Manufacturers now market an array of medical foods, ranging from powders and capsules for Alzheimer disease to low-protein spaghetti for chronic kidney disease (CKD). The FDA has not been completely absent; it takes a narrow view of what medical conditions qualify for treatment with food products and has warned some manufacturers that their misbranded products are acting more like unapproved drugs.

By the FDA’s definition, medical food is limited to products that provide crucial therapy for patients with inborn errors of metabolism (IEM). An example is specialized baby formula for infants with phenylketonuria. Unlike supplements, medical foods are supposed to be used under the supervision of a physician. This has prompted some sales reps to turn up in the clinic, and most manufacturers have online approval forms for doctors to sign. Manufacturers, advisers, and regulators were interviewed for a closer look at this burgeoning industry.
 

The market

The global market for medical foods – about $18 billion in 2019 – is expected to grow steadily in the near future. It is drawing more interest, especially in Europe, where medical foods are more accepted by physicians and consumers, Meghan Donnelly, MS, RDN, said in an interview. She is a registered dietitian who conducts physician outreach in the United States for Flavis, a division of Dr. Schär. That company, based in northern Italy, started out targeting IEMs but now also sells gluten-free foods for celiac disease and low-protein foods for CKD.

It is still a niche market in the United States – and isn’t likely to ever approach the size of the supplement market, according to Marcus Charuvastra, the managing director of Targeted Medical Pharma, which markets Theramine capsules for pain management, among many other products. But it could still be a big win for a manufacturer if they get a small slice of a big market, such as for Alzheimer disease.
 

Defining medical food

According to an update of the Orphan Drug Act in 1988, a medical food is “a food which is formulated to be consumed or administered enterally under the supervision of a physician and which is intended for the specific dietary management of a disease or condition for which distinctive nutritional requirements, based on recognized scientific principles, are established by medical evaluation.” The FDA issued regulations to accompany that law in 1993 but has since only issued a guidance document that is not legally binding.

Medical foods are not drugs and they are not supplements (the latter are intended only for healthy people). The FDA doesn’t require formal approval of a medical food, but, by law, the ingredients must be generally recognized as safe, and manufacturers must follow good manufacturing practices. However, the agency has taken a narrow view of what conditions require medical foods.

Policing medical foods hasn’t been a priority for the FDA, which is why there has been a proliferation of products that don’t meet the FDA’s view of the statutory definition of medical foods, according to Miriam Guggenheim, a food and drug law attorney in Washington, D.C. The FDA usually takes enforcement action when it sees a risk to the public’s health.

The agency’s stance has led to confusion – among manufacturers, physicians, consumers, and even regulators – making the market a kind of Wild West, according to Paul Hyman, a Washington, D.C.–based attorney who has represented medical food companies.

George A. Burdock, PhD, an Orlando-based regulatory consultant who has worked with medical food makers, believes the FDA will be forced to expand their narrow definition. He foresees a reconsideration of many medical food products in light of an October 2019 White House executive order prohibiting federal agencies from issuing guidance in lieu of rules.
 

Manufacturers and the FDA differ

One example of a product about which regulators and manufacturers differ is Theramine, which is described as “specially designed to supply the nervous system with the fuel it needs to meet the altered metabolic requirements of chronic pain and inflammatory disorders.”

It is not considered a medical food by the FDA, and the company has had numerous discussions with the agency about their diverging views, according to Mr. Charuvastra. “We’ve had our warning letters and we’ve had our sit downs, and we just had an inspection.”

Targeted Medical Pharma continues to market its products as medical foods but steers away from making any claims that they are like drugs, he said.

Confusion about medical foods has been exposed in the California Workers’ Compensation System by Leslie Wilson, PhD, and colleagues at the University of California, San Francisco. They found that physicians regularly wrote medical food prescriptions for non–FDA-approved uses and that the system reimbursed the majority of the products at a cost of $15.5 million from 2011 to 2013. More than half of these prescriptions were for Theramine.

Dr. Wilson reported that, for most products, no evidence supported effectiveness, and they were frequently mislabeled – for all 36 that were studied, submissions for reimbursement were made using a National Drug Code, an impossibility because medical foods are not drugs, and 14 were labeled “Rx only.”
 

Big-name companies joining in

The FDA does not keep a list of approved medical foods or manufacturers. Both small businesses and big food companies like Danone, Nestlé, and Abbott are players. Most products are sold online.

In the United States, Danone’s Nutricia division sells formulas and low-protein foods for IEMs. They also sell Ketocal, a powder or ready-to-drink liquid that is pitched as a balanced medical food to simplify and optimize the ketogenic diet for children with intractable epilepsy. Yet the FDA does not include epilepsy among the conditions that medical foods can treat.

Nestlé sells traditional medical foods for IEMs and also markets a range of what it calls nutritional therapies for such conditions as irritable bowel syndrome and dysphagia.

Nestlé is a minority shareholder in Axona, a product originally developed by Accera (Cerecin as of 2018). Jacquelyn Campo, senior director of global communications at Nestlé Health Sciences, said that the company is not actively involved in the operations management of Cerecin. However, on its website, Nestlé touts Axona, which is only available in the United States, as a “medical food” that “is intended for the clinical dietary management of mild to moderate Alzheimer disease.” The Axona site claims that the main ingredient, caprylic triglyceride, is broken down into ketones that provide fuel to treat cerebral hypometabolism, a precursor to Alzheimer disease. In a 2009 study, daily dosing of a preliminary formulation was associated with improved cognitive performance compared with placebo in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer disease.

In 2013, the FDA warned Accera that it was misbranding Axona as a medical food and that the therapeutic claims the company was making would make the product an unapproved drug. Ms. Campo said Nestlé is aware of the agency’s warning, but added, “to our knowledge, Cerecin provided answers to the issues raised by the FDA.”

With the goal of getting drug approval, Accera went on to test a tweaked formulation in a 400-patient randomized, placebo-controlled trial called NOURISH AD that ultimately failed. Nevertheless, Axona is still marketed as a medical food. It costs about $100 for a month’s supply.

Repeated requests for comment from Cerecin were not answered. Danielle Schor, an FDA spokesperson, said the agency will not discuss the status of individual products.
 

More disputes and insurance coverage

Mary Ann DeMarco, executive director of sales and marketing for the Scottsdale, Ariz.–based medical food maker Primus Pharmaceuticals, said the company believes its products fit within the FDA’s medical foods rubric.

These include Fosteum Plus capsules, which it markets “for the clinical dietary management of the metabolic processes of osteopenia and osteoporosis.” The capsules contain a combination of genistein, zinc, calcium, phosphate, vitamin K2, and vitamin D. As proof of effectiveness, the company cites clinical data on some of the ingredients – not the product itself.

Primus has run afoul of the FDA before when it similarly positioned another product, called Limbrel, as a medical food for osteoarthritis. From 2007 to 2017, the FDA received 194 adverse event reports associated with Limbrel, including reports of drug-induced liver injury, pancreatitis, and hypersensitivity pneumonitis. In December 2017, the agency urged Primus to recall Limbrel, a move that it said was “necessary to protect the public health and welfare.” Primus withdrew the product but laid out a defense of Limbrel on a devoted website.

The FDA would not comment any further, said Ms. Schor. Ms. DeMarco said that Primus is working with the FDA to bring Limbrel back to market.

A lack of insurance coverage – even for approved medical foods for IEMs – has frustrated advocates, parents, and manufacturers. They are putting their weight behind the Medical Nutrition Equity Act, which would mandate public and private payer coverage of medical foods for IEMs and digestive conditions such as Crohn disease. That 2019 House bill has 56 cosponsors; there is no Senate companion bill.

“If you can get reimbursement, it really makes the market,” for Primus and the other manufacturers, Mr. Hyman said.

Primus Pharmaceuticals has launched its own campaign, Cover My Medical Foods, to enlist consumers and others to the cause.
 

Partnering with advocates

Although its low-protein breads, pastas, and baking products are not considered medical foods by the FDA, Dr. Schär is marketing them as such in the United States. They are trying to make a mark in CKD, according to Ms. Donnelly. She added that Dr. Schär has been successful in Europe, where nutrition therapy is more integrated in the health care system.

In 2019, Flavis and the National Kidney Foundation joined forces to raise awareness of nutritional interventions and to build enthusiasm for the Flavis products. The partnership has now ended, mostly because Flavis could no longer afford it, according to Ms. Donnelly.

“Information on diet and nutrition is the most requested subject matter from the NKF,” said Anthony Gucciardo, senior vice president of strategic partnerships at the foundation. The partnership “has never been necessarily about promoting their products per se; it’s promoting a healthy diet and really a diet specific for CKD.”

The NKF developed cobranded materials on low-protein foods for physicians and a teaching tool they could use with patients. Consumers could access nutrition information and a discount on Flavis products on a dedicated webpage. The foundation didn’t describe the low-protein products as medical foods, said Mr. Gucciardo, even if Flavis promoted them as such.

In patients with CKD, dietary management can help prevent the progression to end-stage renal disease. Although Medicare covers medical nutrition therapy – in which patients receive personalized assessments and dietary advice – uptake is abysmally low, according to a 2018 study.

Dr. Burdock thinks low-protein foods for CKD do meet the FDA’s criteria for a medical food but that the agency might not necessarily agree with him. The FDA would not comment.
 

Physician beware

When it comes to medical foods, the FDA has often looked the other way because the ingredients may already have been proven safe and the danger to an individual or to the public’s health is relatively low, according to Dr. Burdock and Mr. Hyman.

However, if the agency “feels that a medical food will prevent people from seeking medical care or there is potential to defraud the public, it is justified in taking action against the company,” said Dr. Burdock.

According to Dr. Wilson, the pharmacist who reported on the inappropriate medical food prescriptions in the California system, the FDA could help by creating a list of approved medical foods. Physicians should take time to learn about the difference between medical foods and supplements, she said, adding that they should also not hesitate to “question the veracity of the claims for them.”

Ms. Guggenheim believed doctors need to know that, for the most part, these are not FDA-approved products. She emphasized the importance of evaluating the products and looking at the data of their impact on a disease or condition.

“Many of these companies strongly believe that the products work and help people, so clinicians need to be very data driven,” she said.

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

As the Food and Drug Administration focuses on other issues, companies, both big and small, are looking to boost physician and consumer interest in their “medical foods” – products that fall somewhere between drugs and supplements and promise to mitigate symptoms, or even address underlying pathologies, of a range of diseases.

Manufacturers now market an array of medical foods, ranging from powders and capsules for Alzheimer disease to low-protein spaghetti for chronic kidney disease (CKD). The FDA has not been completely absent; it takes a narrow view of what medical conditions qualify for treatment with food products and has warned some manufacturers that their misbranded products are acting more like unapproved drugs.

By the FDA’s definition, medical food is limited to products that provide crucial therapy for patients with inborn errors of metabolism (IEM). An example is specialized baby formula for infants with phenylketonuria. Unlike supplements, medical foods are supposed to be used under the supervision of a physician. This has prompted some sales reps to turn up in the clinic, and most manufacturers have online approval forms for doctors to sign. Manufacturers, advisers, and regulators were interviewed for a closer look at this burgeoning industry.
 

The market

The global market for medical foods – about $18 billion in 2019 – is expected to grow steadily in the near future. It is drawing more interest, especially in Europe, where medical foods are more accepted by physicians and consumers, Meghan Donnelly, MS, RDN, said in an interview. She is a registered dietitian who conducts physician outreach in the United States for Flavis, a division of Dr. Schär. That company, based in northern Italy, started out targeting IEMs but now also sells gluten-free foods for celiac disease and low-protein foods for CKD.

It is still a niche market in the United States – and isn’t likely to ever approach the size of the supplement market, according to Marcus Charuvastra, the managing director of Targeted Medical Pharma, which markets Theramine capsules for pain management, among many other products. But it could still be a big win for a manufacturer if they get a small slice of a big market, such as for Alzheimer disease.
 

Defining medical food

According to an update of the Orphan Drug Act in 1988, a medical food is “a food which is formulated to be consumed or administered enterally under the supervision of a physician and which is intended for the specific dietary management of a disease or condition for which distinctive nutritional requirements, based on recognized scientific principles, are established by medical evaluation.” The FDA issued regulations to accompany that law in 1993 but has since only issued a guidance document that is not legally binding.

Medical foods are not drugs and they are not supplements (the latter are intended only for healthy people). The FDA doesn’t require formal approval of a medical food, but, by law, the ingredients must be generally recognized as safe, and manufacturers must follow good manufacturing practices. However, the agency has taken a narrow view of what conditions require medical foods.

Policing medical foods hasn’t been a priority for the FDA, which is why there has been a proliferation of products that don’t meet the FDA’s view of the statutory definition of medical foods, according to Miriam Guggenheim, a food and drug law attorney in Washington, D.C. The FDA usually takes enforcement action when it sees a risk to the public’s health.

The agency’s stance has led to confusion – among manufacturers, physicians, consumers, and even regulators – making the market a kind of Wild West, according to Paul Hyman, a Washington, D.C.–based attorney who has represented medical food companies.

George A. Burdock, PhD, an Orlando-based regulatory consultant who has worked with medical food makers, believes the FDA will be forced to expand their narrow definition. He foresees a reconsideration of many medical food products in light of an October 2019 White House executive order prohibiting federal agencies from issuing guidance in lieu of rules.
 

Manufacturers and the FDA differ

One example of a product about which regulators and manufacturers differ is Theramine, which is described as “specially designed to supply the nervous system with the fuel it needs to meet the altered metabolic requirements of chronic pain and inflammatory disorders.”

It is not considered a medical food by the FDA, and the company has had numerous discussions with the agency about their diverging views, according to Mr. Charuvastra. “We’ve had our warning letters and we’ve had our sit downs, and we just had an inspection.”

Targeted Medical Pharma continues to market its products as medical foods but steers away from making any claims that they are like drugs, he said.

Confusion about medical foods has been exposed in the California Workers’ Compensation System by Leslie Wilson, PhD, and colleagues at the University of California, San Francisco. They found that physicians regularly wrote medical food prescriptions for non–FDA-approved uses and that the system reimbursed the majority of the products at a cost of $15.5 million from 2011 to 2013. More than half of these prescriptions were for Theramine.

Dr. Wilson reported that, for most products, no evidence supported effectiveness, and they were frequently mislabeled – for all 36 that were studied, submissions for reimbursement were made using a National Drug Code, an impossibility because medical foods are not drugs, and 14 were labeled “Rx only.”
 

Big-name companies joining in

The FDA does not keep a list of approved medical foods or manufacturers. Both small businesses and big food companies like Danone, Nestlé, and Abbott are players. Most products are sold online.

In the United States, Danone’s Nutricia division sells formulas and low-protein foods for IEMs. They also sell Ketocal, a powder or ready-to-drink liquid that is pitched as a balanced medical food to simplify and optimize the ketogenic diet for children with intractable epilepsy. Yet the FDA does not include epilepsy among the conditions that medical foods can treat.

Nestlé sells traditional medical foods for IEMs and also markets a range of what it calls nutritional therapies for such conditions as irritable bowel syndrome and dysphagia.

Nestlé is a minority shareholder in Axona, a product originally developed by Accera (Cerecin as of 2018). Jacquelyn Campo, senior director of global communications at Nestlé Health Sciences, said that the company is not actively involved in the operations management of Cerecin. However, on its website, Nestlé touts Axona, which is only available in the United States, as a “medical food” that “is intended for the clinical dietary management of mild to moderate Alzheimer disease.” The Axona site claims that the main ingredient, caprylic triglyceride, is broken down into ketones that provide fuel to treat cerebral hypometabolism, a precursor to Alzheimer disease. In a 2009 study, daily dosing of a preliminary formulation was associated with improved cognitive performance compared with placebo in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer disease.

In 2013, the FDA warned Accera that it was misbranding Axona as a medical food and that the therapeutic claims the company was making would make the product an unapproved drug. Ms. Campo said Nestlé is aware of the agency’s warning, but added, “to our knowledge, Cerecin provided answers to the issues raised by the FDA.”

With the goal of getting drug approval, Accera went on to test a tweaked formulation in a 400-patient randomized, placebo-controlled trial called NOURISH AD that ultimately failed. Nevertheless, Axona is still marketed as a medical food. It costs about $100 for a month’s supply.

Repeated requests for comment from Cerecin were not answered. Danielle Schor, an FDA spokesperson, said the agency will not discuss the status of individual products.
 

More disputes and insurance coverage

Mary Ann DeMarco, executive director of sales and marketing for the Scottsdale, Ariz.–based medical food maker Primus Pharmaceuticals, said the company believes its products fit within the FDA’s medical foods rubric.

These include Fosteum Plus capsules, which it markets “for the clinical dietary management of the metabolic processes of osteopenia and osteoporosis.” The capsules contain a combination of genistein, zinc, calcium, phosphate, vitamin K2, and vitamin D. As proof of effectiveness, the company cites clinical data on some of the ingredients – not the product itself.

Primus has run afoul of the FDA before when it similarly positioned another product, called Limbrel, as a medical food for osteoarthritis. From 2007 to 2017, the FDA received 194 adverse event reports associated with Limbrel, including reports of drug-induced liver injury, pancreatitis, and hypersensitivity pneumonitis. In December 2017, the agency urged Primus to recall Limbrel, a move that it said was “necessary to protect the public health and welfare.” Primus withdrew the product but laid out a defense of Limbrel on a devoted website.

The FDA would not comment any further, said Ms. Schor. Ms. DeMarco said that Primus is working with the FDA to bring Limbrel back to market.

A lack of insurance coverage – even for approved medical foods for IEMs – has frustrated advocates, parents, and manufacturers. They are putting their weight behind the Medical Nutrition Equity Act, which would mandate public and private payer coverage of medical foods for IEMs and digestive conditions such as Crohn disease. That 2019 House bill has 56 cosponsors; there is no Senate companion bill.

“If you can get reimbursement, it really makes the market,” for Primus and the other manufacturers, Mr. Hyman said.

Primus Pharmaceuticals has launched its own campaign, Cover My Medical Foods, to enlist consumers and others to the cause.
 

Partnering with advocates

Although its low-protein breads, pastas, and baking products are not considered medical foods by the FDA, Dr. Schär is marketing them as such in the United States. They are trying to make a mark in CKD, according to Ms. Donnelly. She added that Dr. Schär has been successful in Europe, where nutrition therapy is more integrated in the health care system.

In 2019, Flavis and the National Kidney Foundation joined forces to raise awareness of nutritional interventions and to build enthusiasm for the Flavis products. The partnership has now ended, mostly because Flavis could no longer afford it, according to Ms. Donnelly.

“Information on diet and nutrition is the most requested subject matter from the NKF,” said Anthony Gucciardo, senior vice president of strategic partnerships at the foundation. The partnership “has never been necessarily about promoting their products per se; it’s promoting a healthy diet and really a diet specific for CKD.”

The NKF developed cobranded materials on low-protein foods for physicians and a teaching tool they could use with patients. Consumers could access nutrition information and a discount on Flavis products on a dedicated webpage. The foundation didn’t describe the low-protein products as medical foods, said Mr. Gucciardo, even if Flavis promoted them as such.

In patients with CKD, dietary management can help prevent the progression to end-stage renal disease. Although Medicare covers medical nutrition therapy – in which patients receive personalized assessments and dietary advice – uptake is abysmally low, according to a 2018 study.

Dr. Burdock thinks low-protein foods for CKD do meet the FDA’s criteria for a medical food but that the agency might not necessarily agree with him. The FDA would not comment.
 

Physician beware

When it comes to medical foods, the FDA has often looked the other way because the ingredients may already have been proven safe and the danger to an individual or to the public’s health is relatively low, according to Dr. Burdock and Mr. Hyman.

However, if the agency “feels that a medical food will prevent people from seeking medical care or there is potential to defraud the public, it is justified in taking action against the company,” said Dr. Burdock.

According to Dr. Wilson, the pharmacist who reported on the inappropriate medical food prescriptions in the California system, the FDA could help by creating a list of approved medical foods. Physicians should take time to learn about the difference between medical foods and supplements, she said, adding that they should also not hesitate to “question the veracity of the claims for them.”

Ms. Guggenheim believed doctors need to know that, for the most part, these are not FDA-approved products. She emphasized the importance of evaluating the products and looking at the data of their impact on a disease or condition.

“Many of these companies strongly believe that the products work and help people, so clinicians need to be very data driven,” she said.

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

Researchers have published one of the first studies to characterize the association between the consumption of legal cannabis and subsequent pharmacologic and neurobehavioral outcomes, with somewhat surprising results.

The study showed that, although cannabis consumption did not affect most short-term neurobehavioral measures, it delayed recall memory and impaired balance.

The investigation also showed that users of much more potent cannabis concentrates actually demonstrated similar or lower levels of subjective drug intoxication and short-term impairment than did their counterparts who used lower-potency forms of the cannabis flower.

“It does not appear that the potency being used matters that much,” senior investigator Kent E. Hutchison, PhD, said in an interview. “People seem to be titrating to a certain level of intoxication or a certain level of feeling high. And for some people that requires a lot of drug, and for other people not as much.”

“As a first study, this was very useful in the sense that nobody really knew the effects of high-potency cannabis products,” added Dr. Hutchison, a professor of psychology and neuroscience at the University of Colorado Boulder.

The study was published online June 10 in JAMA Psychiatry.

Widespread availability, little research

Recreational cannabis is now legal in 11 states and the District of Columbia, while medical cannabis is legal in 33. However, despite growing popularity of cannabis, there is little research on its potential health and biobehavioral risks, largely because of federal restrictions on cannabis research.

Cannabis users typically consume various forms of the cannabis flower, which can boast concentrations of the psychoactive cannabinoid delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) of up to 30%. However, use of concentrated forms of cannabis – which are made by extracting plant cannabinoids into a different form – is increasing.

Such formulations can boast THC concentrations as high as 90%. Nevertheless, data regarding the relative risks of these higher-strength products are limited.

Previous research has shown a variety of negative short-term and long-term neurobehavioral effects associated with cannabis use, including harmful cognitive and motor effects. Extended exposure to THC may also negatively affect brain regions that are associated with the control of coordinated movement, and create brain-activation deficits in motor control regions that persist well beyond the effects of short-term intoxication.

Despite such findings, Dr. Hutchison said the existing literature on the subject does not yield a real-world view of current cannabis use because it tends to focus on low-THC products that are increasingly less common in today’s legal market.

Given such shortcomings, the investigators wanted to address persistent questions surrounding the neurobehavioral effects of legal cannabis flower products (16% or 24% THC) and cannabis concentrate products (70% or 90% THC). In doing so, they examined three primary topics:

• The association between short-term use of these products and THC plasma levels; subjective intoxication; and mood, cognitive performance, and balance
• Differences in such associations between users of cannabis flower and concentrate products
• Potential variations in these associations by THC potency

High- versus low-potency varieties

The study included 133 individuals (aged 21-70 years), who were designated as either cannabis flower users or cannabis concentrate users. Participants had all used cannabis at least four times in the previous month with no adverse reaction and were not receiving treatment for a psychotic disorder or bipolar disorder.

Participants were randomly assigned to consume either higher-potency or lower-potency products that had been purchased from a local dispensary. Flower users were randomized to purchase 3 g of either a 16% THC or 24% THC product, while concentrate users were randomized to purchase 1g of either 70% THC or 90% THC.

Participants completed a series of four assessments, one at baseline and three others at a mobile laboratory. The mobile laboratory assessments occurred before, immediately after, and one hour after participants had all consumed their cannabis ad libitum.

Of the original cohort of 133 participants, 55 flower cannabis users (mean age, 28.8 years; 46% women) and 66 concentrate cannabis users (mean age, 28.3 years; 45% women) complied with the study’s instructions and had complete data.

The study’s primary outcome measures included plasma cannabinoids, subjective drug intoxication and mood, and neurobehavioral outcomes such as attention, memory, inhibitory control, and balance.

Mixed results

With respect to cannabis concentrations, results showed that users of concentrate exhibited higher levels of both plasma THC and the active metabolite of THC (11-hydroxy-delta⁹-THC) across all points than did their counterparts who used cannabis flower products.

Specifically, mean plasma THC levels were 1,016 ± 1,380 mcg/ml in concentrate users and 455±503 mcg/mL in flower users after ad libitum cannabis consumption. Nevertheless, self-reported levels of intoxication were no different between users of cannabis flower or concentrate products.

Although results also showed that most neurobehavioral measures were not altered by short-term cannabis consumption, there were some notable exceptions. There was a negative linear effect with delayed verbal recall errors, suggesting poorer performance after cannabis use (F_{1, 203} = 32.31; P < .001).

On the other hand, investigators found a positive linear effect with inhibitory control and working memory, which actually suggests better performance after cannabis use. This finding, the researchers note, may be the result of a practice effect. Cannabis flower users performed better across all inhibitory control assessments.

The researchers also tested participants’ balance with their eyes open and closed. In the eyes-open condition, they found a trend toward impaired balance after cannabis use, though this normalized within an hour. When subjects closed their eyes, however, researchers observed a significant short-term increase in sway after cannabis use, which fell back to pre-use levels one hour after use (F_{1, 203} = 18.88; P < .001).

Of note, outcomes did not differ between groups according to the type of cannabis product consumed or its relative potency.

The study yielded several surprising findings, beginning with self-reported intoxication levels, which were not statistically significant between different cannabis flower and concentrate users, despite significantly different plasma THC levels between the two groups.

Dr. Hutchison explained that this may be the result of greater THC tolerance among concentrate users, THC saturation of cannabinoid receptors, or interindividual differences among users with respect to cannabis metabolism or sensitivity.

“I thought for sure that high-potency users would be much more compromised,” he said. “I guess it just goes to show we have a lot to learn about how these things work.”

Additionally, there were virtually no significant changes in acute performance after cannabis use, with the exception of delayed verbal recall. In fact, the most marked change observed in the study was the effect of cannabis on balance immediately after drug use, though these changes seemed to abate within an hour.

Nevertheless, the study highlights several potential public health implications of cannabis consumption, Dr. Hutchison added. “What happens when people with high blood concentrations decide to quit?” he asked. “Do they have trouble quitting? Do they have withdrawal symptoms?”

The long-term effects of cannabis use is another important question that still needs to be answered, he added.

Finally, Dr. Hutchison noted that, although the study showed little difference between users of cannabis flower and concentrates, study participants were all experienced users.

“There is certainly the potential for harm when a naive person uses cannabis concentrate,” he said. “Suddenly they have way more THC than they thought they were going to get, and that’s where a lot of people get into trouble with cannabis.”

Pitfalls and hurdles

In an accompanying editorial, Margaret Haney, PhD, of Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, explained that cannabis’ awkward position as simultaneously legal and illegal, medical and recreational, has hampered researchers’ ability to study its effects as comprehensively as they would otherwise like.

“With a federally illegal drug legalized in individual states, scientists constrained, and federal agencies somewhat silent, clinicians have none of the data that guide their decisions for other medications (eg, which indication, product, cannabinoid ratio, dose, or route of administration; what risks for individual patients [eg, pregnant, adolescent, psychiatric?]),” Dr. Haney wrote.

These pitfalls are compounded by the significant regulatory hurdles.

“The FDA is appropriately cautious about what it allows scientists to test in patients, and none of the products available in dispensaries or online have undergone the safety and manufacturing procedures needed for FDA approval,” she continued. “How then to conduct the studies so needed?”

Yet as Haney noted, giving cannabinoid researchers a Schedule I exemption may help address many of the barriers facing these scientists. Such a move, she said, would increase the number of randomized controlled trials being performed, “and thereby begin to breach the divide between the use of these products and empirical evidence.”

Dr. Hutchison has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Haney disclosed funding from the US National Institute on Drug Abuse and from the Thompson Family Foundation Initiative. The study was funded by the NIH and Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.

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

Researchers have published one of the first studies to characterize the association between the consumption of legal cannabis and subsequent pharmacologic and neurobehavioral outcomes, with somewhat surprising results.

The study showed that, although cannabis consumption did not affect most short-term neurobehavioral measures, it delayed recall memory and impaired balance.

The investigation also showed that users of much more potent cannabis concentrates actually demonstrated similar or lower levels of subjective drug intoxication and short-term impairment than did their counterparts who used lower-potency forms of the cannabis flower.

“It does not appear that the potency being used matters that much,” senior investigator Kent E. Hutchison, PhD, said in an interview. “People seem to be titrating to a certain level of intoxication or a certain level of feeling high. And for some people that requires a lot of drug, and for other people not as much.”

“As a first study, this was very useful in the sense that nobody really knew the effects of high-potency cannabis products,” added Dr. Hutchison, a professor of psychology and neuroscience at the University of Colorado Boulder.

The study was published online June 10 in JAMA Psychiatry.

Widespread availability, little research

Recreational cannabis is now legal in 11 states and the District of Columbia, while medical cannabis is legal in 33. However, despite growing popularity of cannabis, there is little research on its potential health and biobehavioral risks, largely because of federal restrictions on cannabis research.

Cannabis users typically consume various forms of the cannabis flower, which can boast concentrations of the psychoactive cannabinoid delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) of up to 30%. However, use of concentrated forms of cannabis – which are made by extracting plant cannabinoids into a different form – is increasing.

Such formulations can boast THC concentrations as high as 90%. Nevertheless, data regarding the relative risks of these higher-strength products are limited.

Previous research has shown a variety of negative short-term and long-term neurobehavioral effects associated with cannabis use, including harmful cognitive and motor effects. Extended exposure to THC may also negatively affect brain regions that are associated with the control of coordinated movement, and create brain-activation deficits in motor control regions that persist well beyond the effects of short-term intoxication.

Despite such findings, Dr. Hutchison said the existing literature on the subject does not yield a real-world view of current cannabis use because it tends to focus on low-THC products that are increasingly less common in today’s legal market.

Given such shortcomings, the investigators wanted to address persistent questions surrounding the neurobehavioral effects of legal cannabis flower products (16% or 24% THC) and cannabis concentrate products (70% or 90% THC). In doing so, they examined three primary topics:

• The association between short-term use of these products and THC plasma levels; subjective intoxication; and mood, cognitive performance, and balance
• Differences in such associations between users of cannabis flower and concentrate products
• Potential variations in these associations by THC potency

High- versus low-potency varieties

The study included 133 individuals (aged 21-70 years), who were designated as either cannabis flower users or cannabis concentrate users. Participants had all used cannabis at least four times in the previous month with no adverse reaction and were not receiving treatment for a psychotic disorder or bipolar disorder.

Participants were randomly assigned to consume either higher-potency or lower-potency products that had been purchased from a local dispensary. Flower users were randomized to purchase 3 g of either a 16% THC or 24% THC product, while concentrate users were randomized to purchase 1g of either 70% THC or 90% THC.

Participants completed a series of four assessments, one at baseline and three others at a mobile laboratory. The mobile laboratory assessments occurred before, immediately after, and one hour after participants had all consumed their cannabis ad libitum.

Of the original cohort of 133 participants, 55 flower cannabis users (mean age, 28.8 years; 46% women) and 66 concentrate cannabis users (mean age, 28.3 years; 45% women) complied with the study’s instructions and had complete data.

The study’s primary outcome measures included plasma cannabinoids, subjective drug intoxication and mood, and neurobehavioral outcomes such as attention, memory, inhibitory control, and balance.

Mixed results

With respect to cannabis concentrations, results showed that users of concentrate exhibited higher levels of both plasma THC and the active metabolite of THC (11-hydroxy-delta⁹-THC) across all points than did their counterparts who used cannabis flower products.

Specifically, mean plasma THC levels were 1,016 ± 1,380 mcg/ml in concentrate users and 455±503 mcg/mL in flower users after ad libitum cannabis consumption. Nevertheless, self-reported levels of intoxication were no different between users of cannabis flower or concentrate products.

Although results also showed that most neurobehavioral measures were not altered by short-term cannabis consumption, there were some notable exceptions. There was a negative linear effect with delayed verbal recall errors, suggesting poorer performance after cannabis use (F_{1, 203} = 32.31; P < .001).

On the other hand, investigators found a positive linear effect with inhibitory control and working memory, which actually suggests better performance after cannabis use. This finding, the researchers note, may be the result of a practice effect. Cannabis flower users performed better across all inhibitory control assessments.

The researchers also tested participants’ balance with their eyes open and closed. In the eyes-open condition, they found a trend toward impaired balance after cannabis use, though this normalized within an hour. When subjects closed their eyes, however, researchers observed a significant short-term increase in sway after cannabis use, which fell back to pre-use levels one hour after use (F_{1, 203} = 18.88; P < .001).

Of note, outcomes did not differ between groups according to the type of cannabis product consumed or its relative potency.

The study yielded several surprising findings, beginning with self-reported intoxication levels, which were not statistically significant between different cannabis flower and concentrate users, despite significantly different plasma THC levels between the two groups.

Dr. Hutchison explained that this may be the result of greater THC tolerance among concentrate users, THC saturation of cannabinoid receptors, or interindividual differences among users with respect to cannabis metabolism or sensitivity.

“I thought for sure that high-potency users would be much more compromised,” he said. “I guess it just goes to show we have a lot to learn about how these things work.”

Additionally, there were virtually no significant changes in acute performance after cannabis use, with the exception of delayed verbal recall. In fact, the most marked change observed in the study was the effect of cannabis on balance immediately after drug use, though these changes seemed to abate within an hour.

Nevertheless, the study highlights several potential public health implications of cannabis consumption, Dr. Hutchison added. “What happens when people with high blood concentrations decide to quit?” he asked. “Do they have trouble quitting? Do they have withdrawal symptoms?”

The long-term effects of cannabis use is another important question that still needs to be answered, he added.

Finally, Dr. Hutchison noted that, although the study showed little difference between users of cannabis flower and concentrates, study participants were all experienced users.

“There is certainly the potential for harm when a naive person uses cannabis concentrate,” he said. “Suddenly they have way more THC than they thought they were going to get, and that’s where a lot of people get into trouble with cannabis.”

Pitfalls and hurdles

In an accompanying editorial, Margaret Haney, PhD, of Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, explained that cannabis’ awkward position as simultaneously legal and illegal, medical and recreational, has hampered researchers’ ability to study its effects as comprehensively as they would otherwise like.

“With a federally illegal drug legalized in individual states, scientists constrained, and federal agencies somewhat silent, clinicians have none of the data that guide their decisions for other medications (eg, which indication, product, cannabinoid ratio, dose, or route of administration; what risks for individual patients [eg, pregnant, adolescent, psychiatric?]),” Dr. Haney wrote.

These pitfalls are compounded by the significant regulatory hurdles.

“The FDA is appropriately cautious about what it allows scientists to test in patients, and none of the products available in dispensaries or online have undergone the safety and manufacturing procedures needed for FDA approval,” she continued. “How then to conduct the studies so needed?”

Yet as Haney noted, giving cannabinoid researchers a Schedule I exemption may help address many of the barriers facing these scientists. Such a move, she said, would increase the number of randomized controlled trials being performed, “and thereby begin to breach the divide between the use of these products and empirical evidence.”

Dr. Hutchison has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Haney disclosed funding from the US National Institute on Drug Abuse and from the Thompson Family Foundation Initiative. The study was funded by the NIH and Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.

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

Researchers have published one of the first studies to characterize the association between the consumption of legal cannabis and subsequent pharmacologic and neurobehavioral outcomes, with somewhat surprising results.

The study showed that, although cannabis consumption did not affect most short-term neurobehavioral measures, it delayed recall memory and impaired balance.

The investigation also showed that users of much more potent cannabis concentrates actually demonstrated similar or lower levels of subjective drug intoxication and short-term impairment than did their counterparts who used lower-potency forms of the cannabis flower.

“It does not appear that the potency being used matters that much,” senior investigator Kent E. Hutchison, PhD, said in an interview. “People seem to be titrating to a certain level of intoxication or a certain level of feeling high. And for some people that requires a lot of drug, and for other people not as much.”

“As a first study, this was very useful in the sense that nobody really knew the effects of high-potency cannabis products,” added Dr. Hutchison, a professor of psychology and neuroscience at the University of Colorado Boulder.

The study was published online June 10 in JAMA Psychiatry.

Widespread availability, little research

Recreational cannabis is now legal in 11 states and the District of Columbia, while medical cannabis is legal in 33. However, despite growing popularity of cannabis, there is little research on its potential health and biobehavioral risks, largely because of federal restrictions on cannabis research.

Cannabis users typically consume various forms of the cannabis flower, which can boast concentrations of the psychoactive cannabinoid delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) of up to 30%. However, use of concentrated forms of cannabis – which are made by extracting plant cannabinoids into a different form – is increasing.

Such formulations can boast THC concentrations as high as 90%. Nevertheless, data regarding the relative risks of these higher-strength products are limited.

Previous research has shown a variety of negative short-term and long-term neurobehavioral effects associated with cannabis use, including harmful cognitive and motor effects. Extended exposure to THC may also negatively affect brain regions that are associated with the control of coordinated movement, and create brain-activation deficits in motor control regions that persist well beyond the effects of short-term intoxication.

Despite such findings, Dr. Hutchison said the existing literature on the subject does not yield a real-world view of current cannabis use because it tends to focus on low-THC products that are increasingly less common in today’s legal market.

Given such shortcomings, the investigators wanted to address persistent questions surrounding the neurobehavioral effects of legal cannabis flower products (16% or 24% THC) and cannabis concentrate products (70% or 90% THC). In doing so, they examined three primary topics:

• The association between short-term use of these products and THC plasma levels; subjective intoxication; and mood, cognitive performance, and balance
• Differences in such associations between users of cannabis flower and concentrate products
• Potential variations in these associations by THC potency

High- versus low-potency varieties

The study included 133 individuals (aged 21-70 years), who were designated as either cannabis flower users or cannabis concentrate users. Participants had all used cannabis at least four times in the previous month with no adverse reaction and were not receiving treatment for a psychotic disorder or bipolar disorder.

Participants were randomly assigned to consume either higher-potency or lower-potency products that had been purchased from a local dispensary. Flower users were randomized to purchase 3 g of either a 16% THC or 24% THC product, while concentrate users were randomized to purchase 1g of either 70% THC or 90% THC.

Participants completed a series of four assessments, one at baseline and three others at a mobile laboratory. The mobile laboratory assessments occurred before, immediately after, and one hour after participants had all consumed their cannabis ad libitum.

Of the original cohort of 133 participants, 55 flower cannabis users (mean age, 28.8 years; 46% women) and 66 concentrate cannabis users (mean age, 28.3 years; 45% women) complied with the study’s instructions and had complete data.

The study’s primary outcome measures included plasma cannabinoids, subjective drug intoxication and mood, and neurobehavioral outcomes such as attention, memory, inhibitory control, and balance.

Mixed results

With respect to cannabis concentrations, results showed that users of concentrate exhibited higher levels of both plasma THC and the active metabolite of THC (11-hydroxy-delta⁹-THC) across all points than did their counterparts who used cannabis flower products.

Specifically, mean plasma THC levels were 1,016 ± 1,380 mcg/ml in concentrate users and 455±503 mcg/mL in flower users after ad libitum cannabis consumption. Nevertheless, self-reported levels of intoxication were no different between users of cannabis flower or concentrate products.

Although results also showed that most neurobehavioral measures were not altered by short-term cannabis consumption, there were some notable exceptions. There was a negative linear effect with delayed verbal recall errors, suggesting poorer performance after cannabis use (F_{1, 203} = 32.31; P < .001).

On the other hand, investigators found a positive linear effect with inhibitory control and working memory, which actually suggests better performance after cannabis use. This finding, the researchers note, may be the result of a practice effect. Cannabis flower users performed better across all inhibitory control assessments.

The researchers also tested participants’ balance with their eyes open and closed. In the eyes-open condition, they found a trend toward impaired balance after cannabis use, though this normalized within an hour. When subjects closed their eyes, however, researchers observed a significant short-term increase in sway after cannabis use, which fell back to pre-use levels one hour after use (F_{1, 203} = 18.88; P < .001).

Of note, outcomes did not differ between groups according to the type of cannabis product consumed or its relative potency.

The study yielded several surprising findings, beginning with self-reported intoxication levels, which were not statistically significant between different cannabis flower and concentrate users, despite significantly different plasma THC levels between the two groups.

Dr. Hutchison explained that this may be the result of greater THC tolerance among concentrate users, THC saturation of cannabinoid receptors, or interindividual differences among users with respect to cannabis metabolism or sensitivity.

“I thought for sure that high-potency users would be much more compromised,” he said. “I guess it just goes to show we have a lot to learn about how these things work.”

Additionally, there were virtually no significant changes in acute performance after cannabis use, with the exception of delayed verbal recall. In fact, the most marked change observed in the study was the effect of cannabis on balance immediately after drug use, though these changes seemed to abate within an hour.

Nevertheless, the study highlights several potential public health implications of cannabis consumption, Dr. Hutchison added. “What happens when people with high blood concentrations decide to quit?” he asked. “Do they have trouble quitting? Do they have withdrawal symptoms?”

The long-term effects of cannabis use is another important question that still needs to be answered, he added.

Finally, Dr. Hutchison noted that, although the study showed little difference between users of cannabis flower and concentrates, study participants were all experienced users.

“There is certainly the potential for harm when a naive person uses cannabis concentrate,” he said. “Suddenly they have way more THC than they thought they were going to get, and that’s where a lot of people get into trouble with cannabis.”

Pitfalls and hurdles

In an accompanying editorial, Margaret Haney, PhD, of Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, explained that cannabis’ awkward position as simultaneously legal and illegal, medical and recreational, has hampered researchers’ ability to study its effects as comprehensively as they would otherwise like.

“With a federally illegal drug legalized in individual states, scientists constrained, and federal agencies somewhat silent, clinicians have none of the data that guide their decisions for other medications (eg, which indication, product, cannabinoid ratio, dose, or route of administration; what risks for individual patients [eg, pregnant, adolescent, psychiatric?]),” Dr. Haney wrote.

These pitfalls are compounded by the significant regulatory hurdles.

“The FDA is appropriately cautious about what it allows scientists to test in patients, and none of the products available in dispensaries or online have undergone the safety and manufacturing procedures needed for FDA approval,” she continued. “How then to conduct the studies so needed?”

Yet as Haney noted, giving cannabinoid researchers a Schedule I exemption may help address many of the barriers facing these scientists. Such a move, she said, would increase the number of randomized controlled trials being performed, “and thereby begin to breach the divide between the use of these products and empirical evidence.”

Dr. Hutchison has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Haney disclosed funding from the US National Institute on Drug Abuse and from the Thompson Family Foundation Initiative. The study was funded by the NIH and Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.

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

Chronic pain is common in veterans, and early engagement in pain treatment is recommended to forestall consequences of untreated pain, including depression, disability, and substance use disorders. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) employs a stepped care model of pain treatment, with the majority of pain care based in primary care (step 1), and an array of specialty/multimodal treatment options made available at each step in the model for patients with more complex problems, or those who do not respond to more conservative interventions.¹

Recognizing the need for comprehensive pain care, the US Congress passed the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, 21 USC §1521 (2016), which included provisions for VHA facilities to offer multimodal pain treatment and to report the availability of pain care options at each step in the stepped care model.^2, With the passage of the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014, 38 USC §101 (2014) and now the MISSION Act of 2018, 38 USC §703 (2018) veterans whose VHA facilities are too distant, who require care unavailable at that facility, or who have to wait too long to receive care are eligible for treatment at either VHA or non-VHA facilities.³ These laws allocate the same pool of funds to both VHA and community care and thus create an incentive to engage veterans in care within the VHA network so the funds are not spent out of network.⁴

An opportunity to connect veterans with VHA care arises at specialized VHA Compensation and Pension (C&P) clinics during examinations that determine whether a veteran’s health conditions were caused or exacerbated by their military service. Veterans file claims with the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), which sends the patient to either a VHA facility or private practitioners for these examinations. Although the number of examinations conducted each year is not available, there were 274,528 veterans newly awarded compensation in fiscal year 2018, and a substantial number of the total of 4,743,108 veterans with C&P awards had reevaluation examinations for at least 1 of their conditions during that year.⁵ Based largely on the compensation examination results, military service records, and medical records, veterans are granted a service-connected rating for conditions deemed related to military service. A service-connection rating between 0% and 100% is assigned by the VBA, with higher ratings indicating more impairment and, consequently, more financial compensation. Service-connection ratings also are used to decide which veterans are in the highest priority groups for receipt of VHA health care services and are exempt from copayments.

Although traditionally thought of as a forensic evaluation with no clinical purpose, the C&P examination process affords many opportunities to explain VHA care to veterans in distress who file claims.⁶ A randomized clinical trials (RCT) involving veterans with mental health claims and a second RCT including veterans with musculoskeletal claims each found that veterans use more VHA services if offered outreach at the time of the C&P examination.^7,8 In addition to clinical benefits, outreach around the time of C&P examinations also might mitigate the well documented adversarial aspects of the service-connection claims process.^6,9,10 Currently, such outreach is not part of routine VHA procedures. Ironically, it is the VBA and not VHA that contacts veterans who are awarded service-connection with information about their eligibility for VHA care based on their award.

Connecting veterans to pain treatment can involve clarifying eligibility for VHA care for veterans in whom eligibility is unknown, involving primary care providers (PCPs) who are the fulcrum of VHA pain care referrals, and motivating veterans to seek specific pain treatment modalities. Connecting veterans to treatment at the time of their compensation examinations also likely involves bidirectional cooperation between the specialized C&P clinics where veterans are examined and the clinics that provide treatment.

Relational coordination is a theoretical framework that can describe the horizontal relationships between different teams within the same medical facility. Relational coordination theorizes that communication between workgroups is related synergistically to the quality of relationships between workgroups. Relational coordination is better between workgroups that share goals and often have high levels of relational coordination, which is thought to be especially important when activities are ambiguous, require cooperation, and are conducted under time pressure.¹¹ High relational coordination also has been associated with high staff job satisfaction, high satisfaction with delivered services, and adherence to treatment guidelines.^12-14 An observational cohort study suggested that relational coordination can be improved by targeted interventions that bring workgroups together and facilitate intercommunication.¹⁵

To better understand referral and engagement for pain treatment at compensation examinations, VA staff from primary care, mental health, pain management, and C&P teams at the 8 VHA medical centers in New England were invited to complete a validated relational coordination survey.^11,16 A subset of invited staff participated in a semistructured interview about pain treatment referral practices within their medical centers.

Methods

Assessments were conducted as part of a mixed methods formative evaluation involving quantitative and qualitative methods for a clinical trial at the 8 VHA medical centers in New England. The trial is testing an intervention in which veterans presenting for service-connection examinations for musculoskeletal conditions receive brief counseling to engage them in nonopioid pain treatments. The VHA Central Institutional Review Board approved this formative evaluation and the clinical trial has begun (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04062214).

Potential interviewees were involved in referrals to and provision of nonpharmacologic pain treatment and were identified by site investigators in the randomized trial. Identified interviewees were clinical and administrative staff belonging to VHA Primary Care, Pain Management, and Compensation and Pension clinics. A total of 83 staff were identified.

Semistructured Interviews

A subset of the 83 staff were invited to participate in a semistructured interview because their position impacted coordination of pain care at their facilities or they worked in C&P. Staff at a site were interviewed until no new themes emerged from additional interviews, and each of the 8 sites was represented. Interviews were conducted between June and August 2018. Standardized scripts describing the study and inviting participation in a semistructured interview were e-mailed to VA staff. At the time of the interview the study purpose was restated and consent for audiotaping was obtained. The interviews followed a guide designed to assess a relational coordination framework among various workgroups. The data in this manuscript were elicited by specific prompts concerning: (1) How veterans learn about pain care when they come through C&P; and (2) How staff in C&P communicate with treatment providers about veterans who have chronic pain. Each interview lasted about 30 minutes.

Relational Coordination Survey

All identified staff were invited to participate in a relational coordination survey. The survey was administered through VA REDCap. Survey invitations were e-mailed from REDCap to VA staff and included a description of the study and assurances of the confidentiality of data collected. Surveys took < 10 minutes to complete. To begin, respondents identified their primary workgroup (C&P, primary care, pain management, or administrative leadership or staff), secondary workgroup (if they were in > 1), and site. Respondents provided no other identifying information and were assured their responses would be confidential.

The survey consisted of 7 questions regarding beliefs about the quality of communication and interactions among workgroup members in obtaining a shared goal.¹¹ The shared goal in the survey used in this study was providing pain care services for veterans with musculoskeletal conditions. Using a 5-point Likert scale, the 7 questions concerned frequency, timeliness, and accuracy of communication; response to problems providing pain services; sharing goals; and knowledge and respect for respondent’s job function. Higher scores indicated better relational coordination among members of a workgroup. Using the survey’s 7 items, composite mean relational coordination scores were calculated for each of the 4 primary workgroups. To account for the possibility that a member rated their own workgroups, 2 scores were created for each workgroup; one included members of the workgroup and another excluded them.

Data Analysis

The audio-recorded semistructured interviews were transcribed and entered into Atlas.ti qualitative data analysis software. To identify cross-cutting themes, a semistructured telephone interview guide was developed by the qualitative study team that emphasized interrelationships between different clinical teams. The transcripts were then analyzed using the grounded theory approach, a systematic methodology to reduce themes from collected qualitative data. Two research staff read each transcript twice; first to familiarize themselves with the text and then, using open coding, to identify important concepts that emerged from the language and assign codes to segments of text. To ensure accuracy, researchers included suitable contextual information in the coding. Using the constant comparative method, research staff then met to examine the themes that emerged in the interviews, discuss and coalesce coding discrepancies, and compare perspectives.¹⁷

The composite score (mean of the 7 items and 95% CI) of the survey responses was analyzed to identify significant differences in coordination across the 4 workgroups. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to examine each relational coordination score by respondents’ workgroup. Post hoc analyses examined relational coordination survey differences among the 4 respondent groups.

Results

Thirty-nine survey respondents participated in the semistructured interviews. C&P examiners expressed varying degrees of comfort with their role in extending access to pain care for veterans. Some of the examiners strongly believed that their role was purely forensic, and going beyond this forensic role to refer or recommend treatment to veterans would be a violation of their role to conduct a forensic examination. “We don’t have an ongoing therapeutic relationship with any of the patients,” a C&P examiner explained: “We see them once; they’re out the door. It’s forensic. We’re investigating the person as a claimant, we’re investigating it and using our tools to go and review information from 30, 40 years ago.”

Other examiners had a less strict approach for working with veterans in C&P, even though examiners are asked not to provide advice or therapy. One C&P examiner noted that because he “can’t watch people in pain,” during the examination this doctor recommends that patients go to the office that determines whether they are eligible for benefits and choose a PCP. Another C&P examiner concurred with this approach. “I certainly spend a little time with the veteran talking to them about their personal life, who they are, what they do, what they’ve done, what they’re going to do to kind of break the ice between us,” the second examiner explained. “At the end, I will make some suggestions to them. I’m comfortable doing that. I don’t know that everybody is.”

Many of the VHA providers we interviewed had little knowledge of the C&P process or whether C&P examiners had any role or responsibilities in referring veterans for pain care. Most VHA providers could not name any C&P examiners at their facility and were generally unfamiliar with the content of C&P examinations. One provider bluntly said, “I’ve never communicated with anyone in comp and pen [C&P].”

Another PCP also expressed concerns with referrals, suggesting that C&P and primary care “are totally separate and should remain separate,” the PCP explained. “My concern with getting referral from comp and pen is that is it then they’re seeking all sorts of treatment that they wouldn’t necessarily need or ask for otherwise.”

Conversely a different PCP had a positive outlook on how C&P examiners might help ease the transition into the VHA for veterans with pain, especially for newly discharged veterans. “Having comp and pen address these issues is really going to be helpful. I think it could be significant that the topic is introduced early on.”

Relational Coordination Survey

Relational coordination surveys were sent to 83 participants of whom 66 responded. Respondents were from C&P (n = 7), primary care (n = 16), pain medicine (n = 32), and administration (n = 11). Of the 66 respondents, 18 indicated a secondary workgroup. Respondents on 2 teams (primary/secondary) were primary care/administrative (n = 4), pain management/primary care (n = 4), primary care/pain management (n = 3), administrative/primary care (n = 3), and C&P/administrative (n = 1).

The relational coordination composite scores were lowest for C&P. This finding remained whether C&P staff surveys were included or removed from the C&P responses. As demonstrated by the 95% CI, when team members’ surveys were included, C&P scores (95% CI, 2.01-2.42) were significantly lower than the primary care (95% CI, 3.34-3.64) and pain management (95% CI, 3.61-3.96) groups. All the relational coordination composite scores were slightly lower when staff who described their own workgroup were removed (ie, respondents rated their own workgroups as having higher relational coordination than others did). Using the composite scores excluding same workgroup members, the composite scores of the C&P remained significantly lower than all 3 other workgroups (Table). Means values for each individual item in the C&P group were significantly less than all other group means for each item except for the question on responses to problems providing pain services (data not shown). On this item only, the mean C&P rating was > 3 (3.19), but this was still lower than the means of the primary care and pain management workgroups.

Further analyses were undertaken to understand the importance of stakeholders’ ratings of their own workgroup compared with ratings by others of that workgroup. A 1-way ANOVA of workgroup was conducted and displayed significant workgroup differences between member and nonmember relational coordination ratings on 3 of the 4 workgroup’s scores C&P (F = 5.75, 3, 62 df; P < .01) primary care (F = 4.30, 3, 62 df; P < .008) and pain management (F = 8.22, 3, 62 df; P < .001). Post hoc contrasts between the different workgroups doing the rating revealed: (1) significant differences in the assessment of the C&P workgroup between the C&P workgroup and both the primary care (P < .01) and pain management groups (P < .001) with C&P rating their own workgroup significantly higher; (2) a significant difference in the scoring of the primary care workgroup with the primary care group rating themselves significantly higher than the C&P group; and (3) significant differences in the scoring of the pain management workgroup with both pain management and primary care groups rating the pain management group significantly higher than the C&P group. The results were not substantially changed by removing the 18 respondents who identified themselves as being part of > 1 workgroup .

Discussion

Mixed methods revealed disparate viewpoints about the role of C&P in referring veterans to pain care services. Overall, C&P teams coordinated less with other workgroups than the other groups coordinated with each other, and the C&P clinics took only limited steps to engage veterans in VHA treatment. The relational coordination results appeared to be valid. The mean scores were near the middle of the relational coordination rating scale, with standard deviations indicating a range of responses. The lower relational coordination scores of the C&P group remained after removing stakeholders who were rating their own workgroup. Further support for the validity of the relational coordination survey results is that they were consistent with the reports of C&P clinic isolation in the semistructured interviews.

The interview data suggest that one reason the C&P teams had low relational coordination scores is that VA staff interpret the emphasis on evaluative rather than therapeutic examinations to preclude other attempts to engage veterans into VHA treatment, even though such treatment engagement is permitted within existing guidelines. VBA referrals for examinations say nothing, either way, about engaging veterans in VHA care. The relational coordination results suggest that an intervention that might increase treatment referrals from the C&P clinics would be to explain the (existing) policy allowing for outreach around the time of compensation examinations to VHA staff so this goal is clearly agreed-upon. Another approach to facilitating treatment engagement at the C&P examination is to use other interventions that have been associated with better relational coordination such as intergroup meetings, horizontal integration more generally, and an atmosphere is which people from different backgrounds feel empowered to speak frankly to each other.^15,18,19 An important linkage to forge is between C&P teams and the administrative workgroups responsible for verifying a veteran’s eligibility for VHA care and enrolling eligible veterans in VHA treatment. Having C&P clinicians who are familiar with the eligibility and treatment engagement processes would facilitate providing that information to veterans, without compromising the evaluative format of the compensation examination.

An interesting ancillary finding is that relational coordination ratings by members of 3 of the 4 workgroups were higher than ratings by other staff of that workgroup. A possible explanation for this finding is that workgroup members are more aware of the relational coordination efforts made by their own workgroup than those by other workgroups, and therefore rate their own workgroup higher. This also might be part of a broader self-aggrandizement heuristic that has been described in multiple domains.²⁰ Staff may apply this heuristic in reporting that their staff engage in more relational coordination, reflecting the social desirability of being cooperative.

There are simple facility-level interventions that would facilitate veterans access to care such as conducting C&P examinations for potentially treatment-eligible veterans at VHA facilities (vs conducted outside VHA) and having access to materials that explain the treatment options to veterans when they check in for their compensation examinations. The approach to C&P-based treatment engagement that was successfully employed in 2 clinical trials involved having counselors not connected with the C&P clinic contact veterans around the time of their compensation examination to explain VA treatment options and motivate veterans to pursue treatment.^8,9 This independent counselor approach is being evaluated in a larger study.

Limitations

These data are from a small number of VA staff evaluating veterans in a single region of the US. They do not show causation, and it is possible that relational coordination is not necessary for referrals from C&P clinics. Relational coordination might not be necessary when referral processes can be simply routinized with little need for communication.¹¹ However, other analyses in these clinics have found that pain treatment referrals in fact are not routinized, with substantial variability within and across institutions. Another possibility is that features that have been associated with less relational coordination, such as male gender and medical specialist guild, were disproportionately present in C&P clinics compared to the other clinics.²¹Finally, veterans may be eligible for priority VA care for reasons that do not involve service-connection claims (38 CFR § 17.37).

Conclusions

There have been public calls to improve the evaluation of service-connection claims such that this process includes approaches to engage veterans in treatment.²² Referring veterans to treatment when they come for C&P examinations will likely involve improving relational coordination between the C&P service and other parts of VHA. Nationwide, sites that integrate C&P more fully may have valuable lessons to impart about the benefits of such integration. An important step towards better relational coordination will be clarifying that engaging veterans in VHA care around the time of their C&P examinations is a facility-wide goal.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Brian Linde and Efia James for their perspectives on C&P procedures. This work was supported by the Veterans Integrated Service Network 1 Mental Illness Research Education and Clinical Center (MIRECC) and National Institute of Health, National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health Project # 5UG3AT009758-02. (MIR, SM mPIs).

Chronic pain is common in veterans, and early engagement in pain treatment is recommended to forestall consequences of untreated pain, including depression, disability, and substance use disorders. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) employs a stepped care model of pain treatment, with the majority of pain care based in primary care (step 1), and an array of specialty/multimodal treatment options made available at each step in the model for patients with more complex problems, or those who do not respond to more conservative interventions.¹

Recognizing the need for comprehensive pain care, the US Congress passed the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, 21 USC §1521 (2016), which included provisions for VHA facilities to offer multimodal pain treatment and to report the availability of pain care options at each step in the stepped care model.^2, With the passage of the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014, 38 USC §101 (2014) and now the MISSION Act of 2018, 38 USC §703 (2018) veterans whose VHA facilities are too distant, who require care unavailable at that facility, or who have to wait too long to receive care are eligible for treatment at either VHA or non-VHA facilities.³ These laws allocate the same pool of funds to both VHA and community care and thus create an incentive to engage veterans in care within the VHA network so the funds are not spent out of network.⁴

An opportunity to connect veterans with VHA care arises at specialized VHA Compensation and Pension (C&P) clinics during examinations that determine whether a veteran’s health conditions were caused or exacerbated by their military service. Veterans file claims with the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), which sends the patient to either a VHA facility or private practitioners for these examinations. Although the number of examinations conducted each year is not available, there were 274,528 veterans newly awarded compensation in fiscal year 2018, and a substantial number of the total of 4,743,108 veterans with C&P awards had reevaluation examinations for at least 1 of their conditions during that year.⁵ Based largely on the compensation examination results, military service records, and medical records, veterans are granted a service-connected rating for conditions deemed related to military service. A service-connection rating between 0% and 100% is assigned by the VBA, with higher ratings indicating more impairment and, consequently, more financial compensation. Service-connection ratings also are used to decide which veterans are in the highest priority groups for receipt of VHA health care services and are exempt from copayments.

Although traditionally thought of as a forensic evaluation with no clinical purpose, the C&P examination process affords many opportunities to explain VHA care to veterans in distress who file claims.⁶ A randomized clinical trials (RCT) involving veterans with mental health claims and a second RCT including veterans with musculoskeletal claims each found that veterans use more VHA services if offered outreach at the time of the C&P examination.^7,8 In addition to clinical benefits, outreach around the time of C&P examinations also might mitigate the well documented adversarial aspects of the service-connection claims process.^6,9,10 Currently, such outreach is not part of routine VHA procedures. Ironically, it is the VBA and not VHA that contacts veterans who are awarded service-connection with information about their eligibility for VHA care based on their award.

Connecting veterans to pain treatment can involve clarifying eligibility for VHA care for veterans in whom eligibility is unknown, involving primary care providers (PCPs) who are the fulcrum of VHA pain care referrals, and motivating veterans to seek specific pain treatment modalities. Connecting veterans to treatment at the time of their compensation examinations also likely involves bidirectional cooperation between the specialized C&P clinics where veterans are examined and the clinics that provide treatment.

Relational coordination is a theoretical framework that can describe the horizontal relationships between different teams within the same medical facility. Relational coordination theorizes that communication between workgroups is related synergistically to the quality of relationships between workgroups. Relational coordination is better between workgroups that share goals and often have high levels of relational coordination, which is thought to be especially important when activities are ambiguous, require cooperation, and are conducted under time pressure.¹¹ High relational coordination also has been associated with high staff job satisfaction, high satisfaction with delivered services, and adherence to treatment guidelines.^12-14 An observational cohort study suggested that relational coordination can be improved by targeted interventions that bring workgroups together and facilitate intercommunication.¹⁵

To better understand referral and engagement for pain treatment at compensation examinations, VA staff from primary care, mental health, pain management, and C&P teams at the 8 VHA medical centers in New England were invited to complete a validated relational coordination survey.^11,16 A subset of invited staff participated in a semistructured interview about pain treatment referral practices within their medical centers.

Methods

Assessments were conducted as part of a mixed methods formative evaluation involving quantitative and qualitative methods for a clinical trial at the 8 VHA medical centers in New England. The trial is testing an intervention in which veterans presenting for service-connection examinations for musculoskeletal conditions receive brief counseling to engage them in nonopioid pain treatments. The VHA Central Institutional Review Board approved this formative evaluation and the clinical trial has begun (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04062214).

Potential interviewees were involved in referrals to and provision of nonpharmacologic pain treatment and were identified by site investigators in the randomized trial. Identified interviewees were clinical and administrative staff belonging to VHA Primary Care, Pain Management, and Compensation and Pension clinics. A total of 83 staff were identified.

Semistructured Interviews

A subset of the 83 staff were invited to participate in a semistructured interview because their position impacted coordination of pain care at their facilities or they worked in C&P. Staff at a site were interviewed until no new themes emerged from additional interviews, and each of the 8 sites was represented. Interviews were conducted between June and August 2018. Standardized scripts describing the study and inviting participation in a semistructured interview were e-mailed to VA staff. At the time of the interview the study purpose was restated and consent for audiotaping was obtained. The interviews followed a guide designed to assess a relational coordination framework among various workgroups. The data in this manuscript were elicited by specific prompts concerning: (1) How veterans learn about pain care when they come through C&P; and (2) How staff in C&P communicate with treatment providers about veterans who have chronic pain. Each interview lasted about 30 minutes.

Relational Coordination Survey

All identified staff were invited to participate in a relational coordination survey. The survey was administered through VA REDCap. Survey invitations were e-mailed from REDCap to VA staff and included a description of the study and assurances of the confidentiality of data collected. Surveys took < 10 minutes to complete. To begin, respondents identified their primary workgroup (C&P, primary care, pain management, or administrative leadership or staff), secondary workgroup (if they were in > 1), and site. Respondents provided no other identifying information and were assured their responses would be confidential.

The survey consisted of 7 questions regarding beliefs about the quality of communication and interactions among workgroup members in obtaining a shared goal.¹¹ The shared goal in the survey used in this study was providing pain care services for veterans with musculoskeletal conditions. Using a 5-point Likert scale, the 7 questions concerned frequency, timeliness, and accuracy of communication; response to problems providing pain services; sharing goals; and knowledge and respect for respondent’s job function. Higher scores indicated better relational coordination among members of a workgroup. Using the survey’s 7 items, composite mean relational coordination scores were calculated for each of the 4 primary workgroups. To account for the possibility that a member rated their own workgroups, 2 scores were created for each workgroup; one included members of the workgroup and another excluded them.

Data Analysis

The audio-recorded semistructured interviews were transcribed and entered into Atlas.ti qualitative data analysis software. To identify cross-cutting themes, a semistructured telephone interview guide was developed by the qualitative study team that emphasized interrelationships between different clinical teams. The transcripts were then analyzed using the grounded theory approach, a systematic methodology to reduce themes from collected qualitative data. Two research staff read each transcript twice; first to familiarize themselves with the text and then, using open coding, to identify important concepts that emerged from the language and assign codes to segments of text. To ensure accuracy, researchers included suitable contextual information in the coding. Using the constant comparative method, research staff then met to examine the themes that emerged in the interviews, discuss and coalesce coding discrepancies, and compare perspectives.¹⁷

The composite score (mean of the 7 items and 95% CI) of the survey responses was analyzed to identify significant differences in coordination across the 4 workgroups. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to examine each relational coordination score by respondents’ workgroup. Post hoc analyses examined relational coordination survey differences among the 4 respondent groups.

Results

Thirty-nine survey respondents participated in the semistructured interviews. C&P examiners expressed varying degrees of comfort with their role in extending access to pain care for veterans. Some of the examiners strongly believed that their role was purely forensic, and going beyond this forensic role to refer or recommend treatment to veterans would be a violation of their role to conduct a forensic examination. “We don’t have an ongoing therapeutic relationship with any of the patients,” a C&P examiner explained: “We see them once; they’re out the door. It’s forensic. We’re investigating the person as a claimant, we’re investigating it and using our tools to go and review information from 30, 40 years ago.”

Other examiners had a less strict approach for working with veterans in C&P, even though examiners are asked not to provide advice or therapy. One C&P examiner noted that because he “can’t watch people in pain,” during the examination this doctor recommends that patients go to the office that determines whether they are eligible for benefits and choose a PCP. Another C&P examiner concurred with this approach. “I certainly spend a little time with the veteran talking to them about their personal life, who they are, what they do, what they’ve done, what they’re going to do to kind of break the ice between us,” the second examiner explained. “At the end, I will make some suggestions to them. I’m comfortable doing that. I don’t know that everybody is.”

Many of the VHA providers we interviewed had little knowledge of the C&P process or whether C&P examiners had any role or responsibilities in referring veterans for pain care. Most VHA providers could not name any C&P examiners at their facility and were generally unfamiliar with the content of C&P examinations. One provider bluntly said, “I’ve never communicated with anyone in comp and pen [C&P].”

Another PCP also expressed concerns with referrals, suggesting that C&P and primary care “are totally separate and should remain separate,” the PCP explained. “My concern with getting referral from comp and pen is that is it then they’re seeking all sorts of treatment that they wouldn’t necessarily need or ask for otherwise.”

Conversely a different PCP had a positive outlook on how C&P examiners might help ease the transition into the VHA for veterans with pain, especially for newly discharged veterans. “Having comp and pen address these issues is really going to be helpful. I think it could be significant that the topic is introduced early on.”

Relational Coordination Survey

Relational coordination surveys were sent to 83 participants of whom 66 responded. Respondents were from C&P (n = 7), primary care (n = 16), pain medicine (n = 32), and administration (n = 11). Of the 66 respondents, 18 indicated a secondary workgroup. Respondents on 2 teams (primary/secondary) were primary care/administrative (n = 4), pain management/primary care (n = 4), primary care/pain management (n = 3), administrative/primary care (n = 3), and C&P/administrative (n = 1).

The relational coordination composite scores were lowest for C&P. This finding remained whether C&P staff surveys were included or removed from the C&P responses. As demonstrated by the 95% CI, when team members’ surveys were included, C&P scores (95% CI, 2.01-2.42) were significantly lower than the primary care (95% CI, 3.34-3.64) and pain management (95% CI, 3.61-3.96) groups. All the relational coordination composite scores were slightly lower when staff who described their own workgroup were removed (ie, respondents rated their own workgroups as having higher relational coordination than others did). Using the composite scores excluding same workgroup members, the composite scores of the C&P remained significantly lower than all 3 other workgroups (Table). Means values for each individual item in the C&P group were significantly less than all other group means for each item except for the question on responses to problems providing pain services (data not shown). On this item only, the mean C&P rating was > 3 (3.19), but this was still lower than the means of the primary care and pain management workgroups.

Further analyses were undertaken to understand the importance of stakeholders’ ratings of their own workgroup compared with ratings by others of that workgroup. A 1-way ANOVA of workgroup was conducted and displayed significant workgroup differences between member and nonmember relational coordination ratings on 3 of the 4 workgroup’s scores C&P (F = 5.75, 3, 62 df; P < .01) primary care (F = 4.30, 3, 62 df; P < .008) and pain management (F = 8.22, 3, 62 df; P < .001). Post hoc contrasts between the different workgroups doing the rating revealed: (1) significant differences in the assessment of the C&P workgroup between the C&P workgroup and both the primary care (P < .01) and pain management groups (P < .001) with C&P rating their own workgroup significantly higher; (2) a significant difference in the scoring of the primary care workgroup with the primary care group rating themselves significantly higher than the C&P group; and (3) significant differences in the scoring of the pain management workgroup with both pain management and primary care groups rating the pain management group significantly higher than the C&P group. The results were not substantially changed by removing the 18 respondents who identified themselves as being part of > 1 workgroup .

Discussion

Mixed methods revealed disparate viewpoints about the role of C&P in referring veterans to pain care services. Overall, C&P teams coordinated less with other workgroups than the other groups coordinated with each other, and the C&P clinics took only limited steps to engage veterans in VHA treatment. The relational coordination results appeared to be valid. The mean scores were near the middle of the relational coordination rating scale, with standard deviations indicating a range of responses. The lower relational coordination scores of the C&P group remained after removing stakeholders who were rating their own workgroup. Further support for the validity of the relational coordination survey results is that they were consistent with the reports of C&P clinic isolation in the semistructured interviews.

The interview data suggest that one reason the C&P teams had low relational coordination scores is that VA staff interpret the emphasis on evaluative rather than therapeutic examinations to preclude other attempts to engage veterans into VHA treatment, even though such treatment engagement is permitted within existing guidelines. VBA referrals for examinations say nothing, either way, about engaging veterans in VHA care. The relational coordination results suggest that an intervention that might increase treatment referrals from the C&P clinics would be to explain the (existing) policy allowing for outreach around the time of compensation examinations to VHA staff so this goal is clearly agreed-upon. Another approach to facilitating treatment engagement at the C&P examination is to use other interventions that have been associated with better relational coordination such as intergroup meetings, horizontal integration more generally, and an atmosphere is which people from different backgrounds feel empowered to speak frankly to each other.^15,18,19 An important linkage to forge is between C&P teams and the administrative workgroups responsible for verifying a veteran’s eligibility for VHA care and enrolling eligible veterans in VHA treatment. Having C&P clinicians who are familiar with the eligibility and treatment engagement processes would facilitate providing that information to veterans, without compromising the evaluative format of the compensation examination.

An interesting ancillary finding is that relational coordination ratings by members of 3 of the 4 workgroups were higher than ratings by other staff of that workgroup. A possible explanation for this finding is that workgroup members are more aware of the relational coordination efforts made by their own workgroup than those by other workgroups, and therefore rate their own workgroup higher. This also might be part of a broader self-aggrandizement heuristic that has been described in multiple domains.²⁰ Staff may apply this heuristic in reporting that their staff engage in more relational coordination, reflecting the social desirability of being cooperative.

There are simple facility-level interventions that would facilitate veterans access to care such as conducting C&P examinations for potentially treatment-eligible veterans at VHA facilities (vs conducted outside VHA) and having access to materials that explain the treatment options to veterans when they check in for their compensation examinations. The approach to C&P-based treatment engagement that was successfully employed in 2 clinical trials involved having counselors not connected with the C&P clinic contact veterans around the time of their compensation examination to explain VA treatment options and motivate veterans to pursue treatment.^8,9 This independent counselor approach is being evaluated in a larger study.

Limitations

These data are from a small number of VA staff evaluating veterans in a single region of the US. They do not show causation, and it is possible that relational coordination is not necessary for referrals from C&P clinics. Relational coordination might not be necessary when referral processes can be simply routinized with little need for communication.¹¹ However, other analyses in these clinics have found that pain treatment referrals in fact are not routinized, with substantial variability within and across institutions. Another possibility is that features that have been associated with less relational coordination, such as male gender and medical specialist guild, were disproportionately present in C&P clinics compared to the other clinics.²¹Finally, veterans may be eligible for priority VA care for reasons that do not involve service-connection claims (38 CFR § 17.37).

Conclusions

There have been public calls to improve the evaluation of service-connection claims such that this process includes approaches to engage veterans in treatment.²² Referring veterans to treatment when they come for C&P examinations will likely involve improving relational coordination between the C&P service and other parts of VHA. Nationwide, sites that integrate C&P more fully may have valuable lessons to impart about the benefits of such integration. An important step towards better relational coordination will be clarifying that engaging veterans in VHA care around the time of their C&P examinations is a facility-wide goal.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Brian Linde and Efia James for their perspectives on C&P procedures. This work was supported by the Veterans Integrated Service Network 1 Mental Illness Research Education and Clinical Center (MIRECC) and National Institute of Health, National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health Project # 5UG3AT009758-02. (MIR, SM mPIs).

Chronic pain is common in veterans, and early engagement in pain treatment is recommended to forestall consequences of untreated pain, including depression, disability, and substance use disorders. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) employs a stepped care model of pain treatment, with the majority of pain care based in primary care (step 1), and an array of specialty/multimodal treatment options made available at each step in the model for patients with more complex problems, or those who do not respond to more conservative interventions.¹

Recognizing the need for comprehensive pain care, the US Congress passed the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, 21 USC §1521 (2016), which included provisions for VHA facilities to offer multimodal pain treatment and to report the availability of pain care options at each step in the stepped care model.^2, With the passage of the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014, 38 USC §101 (2014) and now the MISSION Act of 2018, 38 USC §703 (2018) veterans whose VHA facilities are too distant, who require care unavailable at that facility, or who have to wait too long to receive care are eligible for treatment at either VHA or non-VHA facilities.³ These laws allocate the same pool of funds to both VHA and community care and thus create an incentive to engage veterans in care within the VHA network so the funds are not spent out of network.⁴

An opportunity to connect veterans with VHA care arises at specialized VHA Compensation and Pension (C&P) clinics during examinations that determine whether a veteran’s health conditions were caused or exacerbated by their military service. Veterans file claims with the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), which sends the patient to either a VHA facility or private practitioners for these examinations. Although the number of examinations conducted each year is not available, there were 274,528 veterans newly awarded compensation in fiscal year 2018, and a substantial number of the total of 4,743,108 veterans with C&P awards had reevaluation examinations for at least 1 of their conditions during that year.⁵ Based largely on the compensation examination results, military service records, and medical records, veterans are granted a service-connected rating for conditions deemed related to military service. A service-connection rating between 0% and 100% is assigned by the VBA, with higher ratings indicating more impairment and, consequently, more financial compensation. Service-connection ratings also are used to decide which veterans are in the highest priority groups for receipt of VHA health care services and are exempt from copayments.

Although traditionally thought of as a forensic evaluation with no clinical purpose, the C&P examination process affords many opportunities to explain VHA care to veterans in distress who file claims.⁶ A randomized clinical trials (RCT) involving veterans with mental health claims and a second RCT including veterans with musculoskeletal claims each found that veterans use more VHA services if offered outreach at the time of the C&P examination.^7,8 In addition to clinical benefits, outreach around the time of C&P examinations also might mitigate the well documented adversarial aspects of the service-connection claims process.^6,9,10 Currently, such outreach is not part of routine VHA procedures. Ironically, it is the VBA and not VHA that contacts veterans who are awarded service-connection with information about their eligibility for VHA care based on their award.

Connecting veterans to pain treatment can involve clarifying eligibility for VHA care for veterans in whom eligibility is unknown, involving primary care providers (PCPs) who are the fulcrum of VHA pain care referrals, and motivating veterans to seek specific pain treatment modalities. Connecting veterans to treatment at the time of their compensation examinations also likely involves bidirectional cooperation between the specialized C&P clinics where veterans are examined and the clinics that provide treatment.

Relational coordination is a theoretical framework that can describe the horizontal relationships between different teams within the same medical facility. Relational coordination theorizes that communication between workgroups is related synergistically to the quality of relationships between workgroups. Relational coordination is better between workgroups that share goals and often have high levels of relational coordination, which is thought to be especially important when activities are ambiguous, require cooperation, and are conducted under time pressure.¹¹ High relational coordination also has been associated with high staff job satisfaction, high satisfaction with delivered services, and adherence to treatment guidelines.^12-14 An observational cohort study suggested that relational coordination can be improved by targeted interventions that bring workgroups together and facilitate intercommunication.¹⁵

To better understand referral and engagement for pain treatment at compensation examinations, VA staff from primary care, mental health, pain management, and C&P teams at the 8 VHA medical centers in New England were invited to complete a validated relational coordination survey.^11,16 A subset of invited staff participated in a semistructured interview about pain treatment referral practices within their medical centers.

Methods

Assessments were conducted as part of a mixed methods formative evaluation involving quantitative and qualitative methods for a clinical trial at the 8 VHA medical centers in New England. The trial is testing an intervention in which veterans presenting for service-connection examinations for musculoskeletal conditions receive brief counseling to engage them in nonopioid pain treatments. The VHA Central Institutional Review Board approved this formative evaluation and the clinical trial has begun (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04062214).

Potential interviewees were involved in referrals to and provision of nonpharmacologic pain treatment and were identified by site investigators in the randomized trial. Identified interviewees were clinical and administrative staff belonging to VHA Primary Care, Pain Management, and Compensation and Pension clinics. A total of 83 staff were identified.

Semistructured Interviews

A subset of the 83 staff were invited to participate in a semistructured interview because their position impacted coordination of pain care at their facilities or they worked in C&P. Staff at a site were interviewed until no new themes emerged from additional interviews, and each of the 8 sites was represented. Interviews were conducted between June and August 2018. Standardized scripts describing the study and inviting participation in a semistructured interview were e-mailed to VA staff. At the time of the interview the study purpose was restated and consent for audiotaping was obtained. The interviews followed a guide designed to assess a relational coordination framework among various workgroups. The data in this manuscript were elicited by specific prompts concerning: (1) How veterans learn about pain care when they come through C&P; and (2) How staff in C&P communicate with treatment providers about veterans who have chronic pain. Each interview lasted about 30 minutes.

Relational Coordination Survey

All identified staff were invited to participate in a relational coordination survey. The survey was administered through VA REDCap. Survey invitations were e-mailed from REDCap to VA staff and included a description of the study and assurances of the confidentiality of data collected. Surveys took < 10 minutes to complete. To begin, respondents identified their primary workgroup (C&P, primary care, pain management, or administrative leadership or staff), secondary workgroup (if they were in > 1), and site. Respondents provided no other identifying information and were assured their responses would be confidential.

The survey consisted of 7 questions regarding beliefs about the quality of communication and interactions among workgroup members in obtaining a shared goal.¹¹ The shared goal in the survey used in this study was providing pain care services for veterans with musculoskeletal conditions. Using a 5-point Likert scale, the 7 questions concerned frequency, timeliness, and accuracy of communication; response to problems providing pain services; sharing goals; and knowledge and respect for respondent’s job function. Higher scores indicated better relational coordination among members of a workgroup. Using the survey’s 7 items, composite mean relational coordination scores were calculated for each of the 4 primary workgroups. To account for the possibility that a member rated their own workgroups, 2 scores were created for each workgroup; one included members of the workgroup and another excluded them.

Data Analysis

The audio-recorded semistructured interviews were transcribed and entered into Atlas.ti qualitative data analysis software. To identify cross-cutting themes, a semistructured telephone interview guide was developed by the qualitative study team that emphasized interrelationships between different clinical teams. The transcripts were then analyzed using the grounded theory approach, a systematic methodology to reduce themes from collected qualitative data. Two research staff read each transcript twice; first to familiarize themselves with the text and then, using open coding, to identify important concepts that emerged from the language and assign codes to segments of text. To ensure accuracy, researchers included suitable contextual information in the coding. Using the constant comparative method, research staff then met to examine the themes that emerged in the interviews, discuss and coalesce coding discrepancies, and compare perspectives.¹⁷

The composite score (mean of the 7 items and 95% CI) of the survey responses was analyzed to identify significant differences in coordination across the 4 workgroups. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to examine each relational coordination score by respondents’ workgroup. Post hoc analyses examined relational coordination survey differences among the 4 respondent groups.

Results

Thirty-nine survey respondents participated in the semistructured interviews. C&P examiners expressed varying degrees of comfort with their role in extending access to pain care for veterans. Some of the examiners strongly believed that their role was purely forensic, and going beyond this forensic role to refer or recommend treatment to veterans would be a violation of their role to conduct a forensic examination. “We don’t have an ongoing therapeutic relationship with any of the patients,” a C&P examiner explained: “We see them once; they’re out the door. It’s forensic. We’re investigating the person as a claimant, we’re investigating it and using our tools to go and review information from 30, 40 years ago.”

Other examiners had a less strict approach for working with veterans in C&P, even though examiners are asked not to provide advice or therapy. One C&P examiner noted that because he “can’t watch people in pain,” during the examination this doctor recommends that patients go to the office that determines whether they are eligible for benefits and choose a PCP. Another C&P examiner concurred with this approach. “I certainly spend a little time with the veteran talking to them about their personal life, who they are, what they do, what they’ve done, what they’re going to do to kind of break the ice between us,” the second examiner explained. “At the end, I will make some suggestions to them. I’m comfortable doing that. I don’t know that everybody is.”

Many of the VHA providers we interviewed had little knowledge of the C&P process or whether C&P examiners had any role or responsibilities in referring veterans for pain care. Most VHA providers could not name any C&P examiners at their facility and were generally unfamiliar with the content of C&P examinations. One provider bluntly said, “I’ve never communicated with anyone in comp and pen [C&P].”

Another PCP also expressed concerns with referrals, suggesting that C&P and primary care “are totally separate and should remain separate,” the PCP explained. “My concern with getting referral from comp and pen is that is it then they’re seeking all sorts of treatment that they wouldn’t necessarily need or ask for otherwise.”

Conversely a different PCP had a positive outlook on how C&P examiners might help ease the transition into the VHA for veterans with pain, especially for newly discharged veterans. “Having comp and pen address these issues is really going to be helpful. I think it could be significant that the topic is introduced early on.”

Relational Coordination Survey

Relational coordination surveys were sent to 83 participants of whom 66 responded. Respondents were from C&P (n = 7), primary care (n = 16), pain medicine (n = 32), and administration (n = 11). Of the 66 respondents, 18 indicated a secondary workgroup. Respondents on 2 teams (primary/secondary) were primary care/administrative (n = 4), pain management/primary care (n = 4), primary care/pain management (n = 3), administrative/primary care (n = 3), and C&P/administrative (n = 1).

The relational coordination composite scores were lowest for C&P. This finding remained whether C&P staff surveys were included or removed from the C&P responses. As demonstrated by the 95% CI, when team members’ surveys were included, C&P scores (95% CI, 2.01-2.42) were significantly lower than the primary care (95% CI, 3.34-3.64) and pain management (95% CI, 3.61-3.96) groups. All the relational coordination composite scores were slightly lower when staff who described their own workgroup were removed (ie, respondents rated their own workgroups as having higher relational coordination than others did). Using the composite scores excluding same workgroup members, the composite scores of the C&P remained significantly lower than all 3 other workgroups (Table). Means values for each individual item in the C&P group were significantly less than all other group means for each item except for the question on responses to problems providing pain services (data not shown). On this item only, the mean C&P rating was > 3 (3.19), but this was still lower than the means of the primary care and pain management workgroups.

Further analyses were undertaken to understand the importance of stakeholders’ ratings of their own workgroup compared with ratings by others of that workgroup. A 1-way ANOVA of workgroup was conducted and displayed significant workgroup differences between member and nonmember relational coordination ratings on 3 of the 4 workgroup’s scores C&P (F = 5.75, 3, 62 df; P < .01) primary care (F = 4.30, 3, 62 df; P < .008) and pain management (F = 8.22, 3, 62 df; P < .001). Post hoc contrasts between the different workgroups doing the rating revealed: (1) significant differences in the assessment of the C&P workgroup between the C&P workgroup and both the primary care (P < .01) and pain management groups (P < .001) with C&P rating their own workgroup significantly higher; (2) a significant difference in the scoring of the primary care workgroup with the primary care group rating themselves significantly higher than the C&P group; and (3) significant differences in the scoring of the pain management workgroup with both pain management and primary care groups rating the pain management group significantly higher than the C&P group. The results were not substantially changed by removing the 18 respondents who identified themselves as being part of > 1 workgroup .

Discussion

Mixed methods revealed disparate viewpoints about the role of C&P in referring veterans to pain care services. Overall, C&P teams coordinated less with other workgroups than the other groups coordinated with each other, and the C&P clinics took only limited steps to engage veterans in VHA treatment. The relational coordination results appeared to be valid. The mean scores were near the middle of the relational coordination rating scale, with standard deviations indicating a range of responses. The lower relational coordination scores of the C&P group remained after removing stakeholders who were rating their own workgroup. Further support for the validity of the relational coordination survey results is that they were consistent with the reports of C&P clinic isolation in the semistructured interviews.

The interview data suggest that one reason the C&P teams had low relational coordination scores is that VA staff interpret the emphasis on evaluative rather than therapeutic examinations to preclude other attempts to engage veterans into VHA treatment, even though such treatment engagement is permitted within existing guidelines. VBA referrals for examinations say nothing, either way, about engaging veterans in VHA care. The relational coordination results suggest that an intervention that might increase treatment referrals from the C&P clinics would be to explain the (existing) policy allowing for outreach around the time of compensation examinations to VHA staff so this goal is clearly agreed-upon. Another approach to facilitating treatment engagement at the C&P examination is to use other interventions that have been associated with better relational coordination such as intergroup meetings, horizontal integration more generally, and an atmosphere is which people from different backgrounds feel empowered to speak frankly to each other.^15,18,19 An important linkage to forge is between C&P teams and the administrative workgroups responsible for verifying a veteran’s eligibility for VHA care and enrolling eligible veterans in VHA treatment. Having C&P clinicians who are familiar with the eligibility and treatment engagement processes would facilitate providing that information to veterans, without compromising the evaluative format of the compensation examination.

An interesting ancillary finding is that relational coordination ratings by members of 3 of the 4 workgroups were higher than ratings by other staff of that workgroup. A possible explanation for this finding is that workgroup members are more aware of the relational coordination efforts made by their own workgroup than those by other workgroups, and therefore rate their own workgroup higher. This also might be part of a broader self-aggrandizement heuristic that has been described in multiple domains.²⁰ Staff may apply this heuristic in reporting that their staff engage in more relational coordination, reflecting the social desirability of being cooperative.

There are simple facility-level interventions that would facilitate veterans access to care such as conducting C&P examinations for potentially treatment-eligible veterans at VHA facilities (vs conducted outside VHA) and having access to materials that explain the treatment options to veterans when they check in for their compensation examinations. The approach to C&P-based treatment engagement that was successfully employed in 2 clinical trials involved having counselors not connected with the C&P clinic contact veterans around the time of their compensation examination to explain VA treatment options and motivate veterans to pursue treatment.^8,9 This independent counselor approach is being evaluated in a larger study.

Limitations

These data are from a small number of VA staff evaluating veterans in a single region of the US. They do not show causation, and it is possible that relational coordination is not necessary for referrals from C&P clinics. Relational coordination might not be necessary when referral processes can be simply routinized with little need for communication.¹¹ However, other analyses in these clinics have found that pain treatment referrals in fact are not routinized, with substantial variability within and across institutions. Another possibility is that features that have been associated with less relational coordination, such as male gender and medical specialist guild, were disproportionately present in C&P clinics compared to the other clinics.²¹Finally, veterans may be eligible for priority VA care for reasons that do not involve service-connection claims (38 CFR § 17.37).

Conclusions

There have been public calls to improve the evaluation of service-connection claims such that this process includes approaches to engage veterans in treatment.²² Referring veterans to treatment when they come for C&P examinations will likely involve improving relational coordination between the C&P service and other parts of VHA. Nationwide, sites that integrate C&P more fully may have valuable lessons to impart about the benefits of such integration. An important step towards better relational coordination will be clarifying that engaging veterans in VHA care around the time of their C&P examinations is a facility-wide goal.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Brian Linde and Efia James for their perspectives on C&P procedures. This work was supported by the Veterans Integrated Service Network 1 Mental Illness Research Education and Clinical Center (MIRECC) and National Institute of Health, National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health Project # 5UG3AT009758-02. (MIR, SM mPIs).

Opioid and nonopioid prescription pain medications have taken different journeys since 2009, but they ended up in the same place in 2018, according to a recent report from the National Center for Health Statistics.

At least by one measure, anyway. Survey data from 2009 to 2010 show that 6.2% of adults aged 20 years and older had taken at least one prescription opioid in the last 30 days and 4.3% had used a prescription nonopioid without an opioid. By 2017-2018, past 30-day use of both drug groups was 5.7%, Craig M. Hales, MD, and associates said in an NCHS data brief.

“Opioids may be prescribed together with nonopioid pain medications, [but] nonpharmacologic and nonopioid-containing pharmacologic therapies are preferred for management of chronic pain,” the NCHS researchers noted.

The increase in prescription nonopioid use over the entire 10-year period managed to reach statistical significance, as did the short-term increase in nonopioids from 2015-2016 to 2017-2018, but the 10-year trend for opioids was not significant, based on data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

Much of the analysis focused on 2015-2018, when 30-day use of any prescription pain medication was reported by 10.7% of adults aged 20 years and older, with use of opioids at 5.7% and nonopioids at 5.0%. For women, use of any pain drug was 12.6% (6.4% opioid, 6.2% nonopioid) from 2015 to 2018, compared with 8.7% for men (4.9%, 3.8%), Dr. Hales and associates reported.

Past 30-day use of both opioids and nonopioids over those 4 years was highest for non-Hispanic whites and lowest, by a significant margin for both drug groups, among non-Hispanic Asian adults, a pattern that held for both men and women, they said.

[email protected]

Opioid and nonopioid prescription pain medications have taken different journeys since 2009, but they ended up in the same place in 2018, according to a recent report from the National Center for Health Statistics.

At least by one measure, anyway. Survey data from 2009 to 2010 show that 6.2% of adults aged 20 years and older had taken at least one prescription opioid in the last 30 days and 4.3% had used a prescription nonopioid without an opioid. By 2017-2018, past 30-day use of both drug groups was 5.7%, Craig M. Hales, MD, and associates said in an NCHS data brief.

“Opioids may be prescribed together with nonopioid pain medications, [but] nonpharmacologic and nonopioid-containing pharmacologic therapies are preferred for management of chronic pain,” the NCHS researchers noted.

The increase in prescription nonopioid use over the entire 10-year period managed to reach statistical significance, as did the short-term increase in nonopioids from 2015-2016 to 2017-2018, but the 10-year trend for opioids was not significant, based on data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

Much of the analysis focused on 2015-2018, when 30-day use of any prescription pain medication was reported by 10.7% of adults aged 20 years and older, with use of opioids at 5.7% and nonopioids at 5.0%. For women, use of any pain drug was 12.6% (6.4% opioid, 6.2% nonopioid) from 2015 to 2018, compared with 8.7% for men (4.9%, 3.8%), Dr. Hales and associates reported.

Past 30-day use of both opioids and nonopioids over those 4 years was highest for non-Hispanic whites and lowest, by a significant margin for both drug groups, among non-Hispanic Asian adults, a pattern that held for both men and women, they said.

[email protected]

Opioid and nonopioid prescription pain medications have taken different journeys since 2009, but they ended up in the same place in 2018, according to a recent report from the National Center for Health Statistics.

At least by one measure, anyway. Survey data from 2009 to 2010 show that 6.2% of adults aged 20 years and older had taken at least one prescription opioid in the last 30 days and 4.3% had used a prescription nonopioid without an opioid. By 2017-2018, past 30-day use of both drug groups was 5.7%, Craig M. Hales, MD, and associates said in an NCHS data brief.

“Opioids may be prescribed together with nonopioid pain medications, [but] nonpharmacologic and nonopioid-containing pharmacologic therapies are preferred for management of chronic pain,” the NCHS researchers noted.

The increase in prescription nonopioid use over the entire 10-year period managed to reach statistical significance, as did the short-term increase in nonopioids from 2015-2016 to 2017-2018, but the 10-year trend for opioids was not significant, based on data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

Much of the analysis focused on 2015-2018, when 30-day use of any prescription pain medication was reported by 10.7% of adults aged 20 years and older, with use of opioids at 5.7% and nonopioids at 5.0%. For women, use of any pain drug was 12.6% (6.4% opioid, 6.2% nonopioid) from 2015 to 2018, compared with 8.7% for men (4.9%, 3.8%), Dr. Hales and associates reported.

Past 30-day use of both opioids and nonopioids over those 4 years was highest for non-Hispanic whites and lowest, by a significant margin for both drug groups, among non-Hispanic Asian adults, a pattern that held for both men and women, they said.

[email protected]

Two new studies offer positive news about medical cannabis, suggesting that marijuana products improve physical and cognitive symptoms, boost quality of life, and rarely produce signs of problematic use.

Anatoliy Sizov/Getty Images

In one study, patients with epilepsy who used medical cannabis were nearly half as likely to have needed an emergency department visit within the last 30 days as was a control group. In the other study, 3 of 54 subjects who used medical cannabis showed signs of possible cannabis use disorder (CUD) over 12 months.

The findings show that “there is improvement in a range of outcome variables, and the adverse effects seem to be minimal, compared to what we might have hypothesized based on the bulk of the literature on the negative effects of cannabis on health outcomes,” cannabis researcher Ziva Cooper, PhD, of the University of California at Los Angeles, said in an interview. Dr. Cooper moderated a session about the studies at the virtual annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence.

In one study, cannabis researcher Ryan Vandrey, PhD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues compared medical cannabis users (number, 808; mean age, 38; percentage female, 63%) to a control group of people who were interested in medical cannabis (n, 468; mean age, 35; percentage female, 62%).

In both groups, 79% were White. The groups had similar levels of primary medical conditions, such as neurologic (38% and 36%, respectively, for the medical cannabis group and control group) and chronic pain (25% and 23%, respectively.)

The wide majority of those in the medical cannabis group – 58% – were cannabidiol (CBD) users, relying on a component of cannabis (marijuana) that does not make people high. Fewer than 20% used tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which does make people high, or a combination of both CBD and THC.

Most of those in the medical cannabis group used the drug as an adjunct (39%) to other treatments or last-resort (29%) treatment instead of first line (11%) or second line (18%).

In patients with epilepsy, about 45% of controls reported a past-month ED visit, compared with about 25% of medical cannabis users. The gap in past-month hospital admissions was even wider, at about 35% for the controls and about 15% for the medical cannabis.

After an initial survey, the researchers followed subjects prospectively; some either started or stopped using medical cannabis. From baseline to follow-up, those in the medical cannabis group improved more, compared with those in the control group on a variety of measures of quality of life, anxiety, and depression.

“Folks who were in the control condition at baseline and then initiated cannabis use started to look more like the baseline cannabis users,” Dr. Vandrey said. “The folks who were cannabis users at baseline and then stopped for whatever reason started to look like the controls. And the controls [who never started using medical cannabis] stayed the same.”

As for adverse effects, two-thirds of medical cannabis users reported no problems; the highest number, 14%, reported high cost.

As for limitations, Dr. Vandrey reported missing data, a reliance on self-reports, and poor follow-up with about a third of participants agreeing to complete follow-up assessments. “We are continuing to collect data on this,” he said, “and we’re hoping we’ll be able to drill down more as we get bigger.”

The study was funded by the Realm of Caring Foundation.

In the other study, led by cannabis researcher Staci Gruber, PhD, of McLean Hospital in Belmont, Mass., and Harvard Medical School in Boston, researchers tracked 54 subjects (mean age, 49; 20 male and 34 female; 48 white) for up to 2 years after they began medical cannabis use. Most had pain (36) or anxiety/PTSD (31), and all had to have abstained from recreational cannabis use for at least 1 year.

At follow-ups, the users reported improved mood and anxiety via various measures, and they saw some improvement in quality of life. “We did not see worsening cognitive performance,” Dr. Gruber said. “In fact, we saw improved performance or no change on measures of executive function, in contrast to what we see in the literature.”

Research has suggested that as many as 30% of recreational cannabis users develop cannabis use disorder (CUD), Dr. Gruber said. But only 3 of the 54 patients showed signs of possible CUD at 12 months, she said, even though frequency of use jumped substantially vs. baseline.

Information about study funding was not available.

Dr. Cooper disclosed relationships with FSD Pharma, Beckley Canopy Therapeutics, and Insys Therapeutics. Dr. Vandrey disclosed work with Zynerba Pharmaceuticals, Canopy Health Innovations, and FSD Pharma. Dr. Gruber reported no disclosures.

Two new studies offer positive news about medical cannabis, suggesting that marijuana products improve physical and cognitive symptoms, boost quality of life, and rarely produce signs of problematic use.

Anatoliy Sizov/Getty Images

In one study, patients with epilepsy who used medical cannabis were nearly half as likely to have needed an emergency department visit within the last 30 days as was a control group. In the other study, 3 of 54 subjects who used medical cannabis showed signs of possible cannabis use disorder (CUD) over 12 months.

The findings show that “there is improvement in a range of outcome variables, and the adverse effects seem to be minimal, compared to what we might have hypothesized based on the bulk of the literature on the negative effects of cannabis on health outcomes,” cannabis researcher Ziva Cooper, PhD, of the University of California at Los Angeles, said in an interview. Dr. Cooper moderated a session about the studies at the virtual annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence.

In one study, cannabis researcher Ryan Vandrey, PhD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues compared medical cannabis users (number, 808; mean age, 38; percentage female, 63%) to a control group of people who were interested in medical cannabis (n, 468; mean age, 35; percentage female, 62%).

In both groups, 79% were White. The groups had similar levels of primary medical conditions, such as neurologic (38% and 36%, respectively, for the medical cannabis group and control group) and chronic pain (25% and 23%, respectively.)

The wide majority of those in the medical cannabis group – 58% – were cannabidiol (CBD) users, relying on a component of cannabis (marijuana) that does not make people high. Fewer than 20% used tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which does make people high, or a combination of both CBD and THC.

Most of those in the medical cannabis group used the drug as an adjunct (39%) to other treatments or last-resort (29%) treatment instead of first line (11%) or second line (18%).

In patients with epilepsy, about 45% of controls reported a past-month ED visit, compared with about 25% of medical cannabis users. The gap in past-month hospital admissions was even wider, at about 35% for the controls and about 15% for the medical cannabis.

After an initial survey, the researchers followed subjects prospectively; some either started or stopped using medical cannabis. From baseline to follow-up, those in the medical cannabis group improved more, compared with those in the control group on a variety of measures of quality of life, anxiety, and depression.

“Folks who were in the control condition at baseline and then initiated cannabis use started to look more like the baseline cannabis users,” Dr. Vandrey said. “The folks who were cannabis users at baseline and then stopped for whatever reason started to look like the controls. And the controls [who never started using medical cannabis] stayed the same.”

As for adverse effects, two-thirds of medical cannabis users reported no problems; the highest number, 14%, reported high cost.

As for limitations, Dr. Vandrey reported missing data, a reliance on self-reports, and poor follow-up with about a third of participants agreeing to complete follow-up assessments. “We are continuing to collect data on this,” he said, “and we’re hoping we’ll be able to drill down more as we get bigger.”

The study was funded by the Realm of Caring Foundation.

In the other study, led by cannabis researcher Staci Gruber, PhD, of McLean Hospital in Belmont, Mass., and Harvard Medical School in Boston, researchers tracked 54 subjects (mean age, 49; 20 male and 34 female; 48 white) for up to 2 years after they began medical cannabis use. Most had pain (36) or anxiety/PTSD (31), and all had to have abstained from recreational cannabis use for at least 1 year.

At follow-ups, the users reported improved mood and anxiety via various measures, and they saw some improvement in quality of life. “We did not see worsening cognitive performance,” Dr. Gruber said. “In fact, we saw improved performance or no change on measures of executive function, in contrast to what we see in the literature.”

Research has suggested that as many as 30% of recreational cannabis users develop cannabis use disorder (CUD), Dr. Gruber said. But only 3 of the 54 patients showed signs of possible CUD at 12 months, she said, even though frequency of use jumped substantially vs. baseline.

Information about study funding was not available.

Dr. Cooper disclosed relationships with FSD Pharma, Beckley Canopy Therapeutics, and Insys Therapeutics. Dr. Vandrey disclosed work with Zynerba Pharmaceuticals, Canopy Health Innovations, and FSD Pharma. Dr. Gruber reported no disclosures.

Two new studies offer positive news about medical cannabis, suggesting that marijuana products improve physical and cognitive symptoms, boost quality of life, and rarely produce signs of problematic use.

Anatoliy Sizov/Getty Images

In one study, patients with epilepsy who used medical cannabis were nearly half as likely to have needed an emergency department visit within the last 30 days as was a control group. In the other study, 3 of 54 subjects who used medical cannabis showed signs of possible cannabis use disorder (CUD) over 12 months.

The findings show that “there is improvement in a range of outcome variables, and the adverse effects seem to be minimal, compared to what we might have hypothesized based on the bulk of the literature on the negative effects of cannabis on health outcomes,” cannabis researcher Ziva Cooper, PhD, of the University of California at Los Angeles, said in an interview. Dr. Cooper moderated a session about the studies at the virtual annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence.

In one study, cannabis researcher Ryan Vandrey, PhD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues compared medical cannabis users (number, 808; mean age, 38; percentage female, 63%) to a control group of people who were interested in medical cannabis (n, 468; mean age, 35; percentage female, 62%).

In both groups, 79% were White. The groups had similar levels of primary medical conditions, such as neurologic (38% and 36%, respectively, for the medical cannabis group and control group) and chronic pain (25% and 23%, respectively.)

The wide majority of those in the medical cannabis group – 58% – were cannabidiol (CBD) users, relying on a component of cannabis (marijuana) that does not make people high. Fewer than 20% used tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which does make people high, or a combination of both CBD and THC.

Most of those in the medical cannabis group used the drug as an adjunct (39%) to other treatments or last-resort (29%) treatment instead of first line (11%) or second line (18%).

In patients with epilepsy, about 45% of controls reported a past-month ED visit, compared with about 25% of medical cannabis users. The gap in past-month hospital admissions was even wider, at about 35% for the controls and about 15% for the medical cannabis.

After an initial survey, the researchers followed subjects prospectively; some either started or stopped using medical cannabis. From baseline to follow-up, those in the medical cannabis group improved more, compared with those in the control group on a variety of measures of quality of life, anxiety, and depression.

“Folks who were in the control condition at baseline and then initiated cannabis use started to look more like the baseline cannabis users,” Dr. Vandrey said. “The folks who were cannabis users at baseline and then stopped for whatever reason started to look like the controls. And the controls [who never started using medical cannabis] stayed the same.”

As for adverse effects, two-thirds of medical cannabis users reported no problems; the highest number, 14%, reported high cost.

As for limitations, Dr. Vandrey reported missing data, a reliance on self-reports, and poor follow-up with about a third of participants agreeing to complete follow-up assessments. “We are continuing to collect data on this,” he said, “and we’re hoping we’ll be able to drill down more as we get bigger.”

The study was funded by the Realm of Caring Foundation.

In the other study, led by cannabis researcher Staci Gruber, PhD, of McLean Hospital in Belmont, Mass., and Harvard Medical School in Boston, researchers tracked 54 subjects (mean age, 49; 20 male and 34 female; 48 white) for up to 2 years after they began medical cannabis use. Most had pain (36) or anxiety/PTSD (31), and all had to have abstained from recreational cannabis use for at least 1 year.

At follow-ups, the users reported improved mood and anxiety via various measures, and they saw some improvement in quality of life. “We did not see worsening cognitive performance,” Dr. Gruber said. “In fact, we saw improved performance or no change on measures of executive function, in contrast to what we see in the literature.”

Research has suggested that as many as 30% of recreational cannabis users develop cannabis use disorder (CUD), Dr. Gruber said. But only 3 of the 54 patients showed signs of possible CUD at 12 months, she said, even though frequency of use jumped substantially vs. baseline.

Information about study funding was not available.

Dr. Cooper disclosed relationships with FSD Pharma, Beckley Canopy Therapeutics, and Insys Therapeutics. Dr. Vandrey disclosed work with Zynerba Pharmaceuticals, Canopy Health Innovations, and FSD Pharma. Dr. Gruber reported no disclosures.

Planning for reduced use of opioids in pain management involves identifying appropriate patients and managing their expectations, according to according to Timothy E. Miller, MB, ChB, FRCA, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., who is president of the American Society for Enhanced Recovery.

Multimodal analgesia plans can be a beneficial part of enhanced recovery and may reduce or eliminate the need for opioids in some patients, he said in a presentation at the virtual Annual Minimally Invasive Surgery Symposium sponsored by Global Academy for Medical Education.

Dr. Miller shared a treatment algorithm for achieving optimal analgesia in patients after colorectal surgery that combines intravenous or oral analgesia with local anesthetics and additional nonopioid options. The algorithm involves choosing NSAIDs, acetaminophen, or gabapentin for IV/oral use. In addition, options for local anesthetic include with a choice of single-shot transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block.

Careful patient selection is key to an opioid-free or opioid reduced anesthetic strategy, Dr. Miller said. The appropriate patients have “no chronic opioids, no anxiety, and the desire to avoid opioid side effects,” he said.

Opioid-free or opioid-reduced strategies include realigning patient expectations to prepare for pain at a level of 2-4 on a scale of 10 as “expected and reasonable,” he said. Patients given no opioids or reduced opioids may report cramping after laparoscopic surgery, as well as shoulder pain that is referred from the CO₂ bubble under the diaphragm, he said. However, opioids don’t treat the shoulder pain well, and “walking or changing position usually relieves this pain,” and it usually resolves within 24 hours, Dr. Miller noted. “Just letting the patient know what is expected in terms of pain relief in their recovery is hugely important,” he said.

The optimal analgesia after surgery is a plan that combines optimized patient comfort with the fastest functional recovery and the fewest side effects, he emphasized.

Optimized patient comfort includes optimal pain ratings at rest and with movement, a decreasing impact of pain on emotion, function, and sleep disruption, and an improvement in the patient experience, he said. The fastest functional recovery is defined as a return to drinking liquids, eating solid foods, performing activities of daily living, and maintaining normal bladder, bowel, and cognitive function. Side effects to be considered in analgesia included nausea, vomiting, sedation, ileus, itching, dizziness, and delirium, he said.

In an unpublished study, Dr. Miller and colleagues eliminated opioids intraoperatively in a series of 56 cases of laparoscopic cholecystectomy and found significantly less opioids needed in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU). In addition, opioid-free patients had significantly shorter length of stay in the PACU, he said. “We are writing this up for publication and looking into doing larger studies,” Dr. Miller said.

Questions include whether the opioid-free technique translates more broadly, he said.

In addition, it is important to continue to collect data and study methods to treat pain and reduce opioid use perioperatively, Dr. Miller said. Some ongoing concerns include data surrounding the use of gabapentin and possible association with respiratory depression, he noted. Several meta-analyses have suggested that “gabapentinoids (gabapentin, pregabalin) when given as a single dose preoperatively are associated with a decrease in postoperative pain and opioid consumption at 24 hours,” said Dr. Miller. “When gabapentinoids are included in multimodal analgesic regimens, intraoperative opioids must be reduced, and increased vigilance for respiratory depression may be warranted, especially in elderly patients,” he said.

Overall, opioid-free anesthesia is both feasible and appropriate in certain patient populations, Dr. Miller concluded. “Implement your pathway and measure your outcomes with timely feedback so you can revise your protocol based on data,” he emphasized.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Dr. Miller disclosed relationships with Edwards Lifesciences, and serving as a board member for the Perioperative Quality Initiative and as a founding member of the Morpheus Consortium.

Planning for reduced use of opioids in pain management involves identifying appropriate patients and managing their expectations, according to according to Timothy E. Miller, MB, ChB, FRCA, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., who is president of the American Society for Enhanced Recovery.

Multimodal analgesia plans can be a beneficial part of enhanced recovery and may reduce or eliminate the need for opioids in some patients, he said in a presentation at the virtual Annual Minimally Invasive Surgery Symposium sponsored by Global Academy for Medical Education.

Dr. Miller shared a treatment algorithm for achieving optimal analgesia in patients after colorectal surgery that combines intravenous or oral analgesia with local anesthetics and additional nonopioid options. The algorithm involves choosing NSAIDs, acetaminophen, or gabapentin for IV/oral use. In addition, options for local anesthetic include with a choice of single-shot transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block.

Careful patient selection is key to an opioid-free or opioid reduced anesthetic strategy, Dr. Miller said. The appropriate patients have “no chronic opioids, no anxiety, and the desire to avoid opioid side effects,” he said.

Opioid-free or opioid-reduced strategies include realigning patient expectations to prepare for pain at a level of 2-4 on a scale of 10 as “expected and reasonable,” he said. Patients given no opioids or reduced opioids may report cramping after laparoscopic surgery, as well as shoulder pain that is referred from the CO₂ bubble under the diaphragm, he said. However, opioids don’t treat the shoulder pain well, and “walking or changing position usually relieves this pain,” and it usually resolves within 24 hours, Dr. Miller noted. “Just letting the patient know what is expected in terms of pain relief in their recovery is hugely important,” he said.

The optimal analgesia after surgery is a plan that combines optimized patient comfort with the fastest functional recovery and the fewest side effects, he emphasized.

Optimized patient comfort includes optimal pain ratings at rest and with movement, a decreasing impact of pain on emotion, function, and sleep disruption, and an improvement in the patient experience, he said. The fastest functional recovery is defined as a return to drinking liquids, eating solid foods, performing activities of daily living, and maintaining normal bladder, bowel, and cognitive function. Side effects to be considered in analgesia included nausea, vomiting, sedation, ileus, itching, dizziness, and delirium, he said.

In an unpublished study, Dr. Miller and colleagues eliminated opioids intraoperatively in a series of 56 cases of laparoscopic cholecystectomy and found significantly less opioids needed in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU). In addition, opioid-free patients had significantly shorter length of stay in the PACU, he said. “We are writing this up for publication and looking into doing larger studies,” Dr. Miller said.

Questions include whether the opioid-free technique translates more broadly, he said.

In addition, it is important to continue to collect data and study methods to treat pain and reduce opioid use perioperatively, Dr. Miller said. Some ongoing concerns include data surrounding the use of gabapentin and possible association with respiratory depression, he noted. Several meta-analyses have suggested that “gabapentinoids (gabapentin, pregabalin) when given as a single dose preoperatively are associated with a decrease in postoperative pain and opioid consumption at 24 hours,” said Dr. Miller. “When gabapentinoids are included in multimodal analgesic regimens, intraoperative opioids must be reduced, and increased vigilance for respiratory depression may be warranted, especially in elderly patients,” he said.

Overall, opioid-free anesthesia is both feasible and appropriate in certain patient populations, Dr. Miller concluded. “Implement your pathway and measure your outcomes with timely feedback so you can revise your protocol based on data,” he emphasized.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Dr. Miller disclosed relationships with Edwards Lifesciences, and serving as a board member for the Perioperative Quality Initiative and as a founding member of the Morpheus Consortium.

Planning for reduced use of opioids in pain management involves identifying appropriate patients and managing their expectations, according to according to Timothy E. Miller, MB, ChB, FRCA, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., who is president of the American Society for Enhanced Recovery.

Multimodal analgesia plans can be a beneficial part of enhanced recovery and may reduce or eliminate the need for opioids in some patients, he said in a presentation at the virtual Annual Minimally Invasive Surgery Symposium sponsored by Global Academy for Medical Education.

Dr. Miller shared a treatment algorithm for achieving optimal analgesia in patients after colorectal surgery that combines intravenous or oral analgesia with local anesthetics and additional nonopioid options. The algorithm involves choosing NSAIDs, acetaminophen, or gabapentin for IV/oral use. In addition, options for local anesthetic include with a choice of single-shot transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block.

Careful patient selection is key to an opioid-free or opioid reduced anesthetic strategy, Dr. Miller said. The appropriate patients have “no chronic opioids, no anxiety, and the desire to avoid opioid side effects,” he said.

Opioid-free or opioid-reduced strategies include realigning patient expectations to prepare for pain at a level of 2-4 on a scale of 10 as “expected and reasonable,” he said. Patients given no opioids or reduced opioids may report cramping after laparoscopic surgery, as well as shoulder pain that is referred from the CO₂ bubble under the diaphragm, he said. However, opioids don’t treat the shoulder pain well, and “walking or changing position usually relieves this pain,” and it usually resolves within 24 hours, Dr. Miller noted. “Just letting the patient know what is expected in terms of pain relief in their recovery is hugely important,” he said.

The optimal analgesia after surgery is a plan that combines optimized patient comfort with the fastest functional recovery and the fewest side effects, he emphasized.

Optimized patient comfort includes optimal pain ratings at rest and with movement, a decreasing impact of pain on emotion, function, and sleep disruption, and an improvement in the patient experience, he said. The fastest functional recovery is defined as a return to drinking liquids, eating solid foods, performing activities of daily living, and maintaining normal bladder, bowel, and cognitive function. Side effects to be considered in analgesia included nausea, vomiting, sedation, ileus, itching, dizziness, and delirium, he said.

In an unpublished study, Dr. Miller and colleagues eliminated opioids intraoperatively in a series of 56 cases of laparoscopic cholecystectomy and found significantly less opioids needed in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU). In addition, opioid-free patients had significantly shorter length of stay in the PACU, he said. “We are writing this up for publication and looking into doing larger studies,” Dr. Miller said.

Questions include whether the opioid-free technique translates more broadly, he said.

In addition, it is important to continue to collect data and study methods to treat pain and reduce opioid use perioperatively, Dr. Miller said. Some ongoing concerns include data surrounding the use of gabapentin and possible association with respiratory depression, he noted. Several meta-analyses have suggested that “gabapentinoids (gabapentin, pregabalin) when given as a single dose preoperatively are associated with a decrease in postoperative pain and opioid consumption at 24 hours,” said Dr. Miller. “When gabapentinoids are included in multimodal analgesic regimens, intraoperative opioids must be reduced, and increased vigilance for respiratory depression may be warranted, especially in elderly patients,” he said.

Overall, opioid-free anesthesia is both feasible and appropriate in certain patient populations, Dr. Miller concluded. “Implement your pathway and measure your outcomes with timely feedback so you can revise your protocol based on data,” he emphasized.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Dr. Miller disclosed relationships with Edwards Lifesciences, and serving as a board member for the Perioperative Quality Initiative and as a founding member of the Morpheus Consortium.

For surgical patients on chronic opioid therapy, the goals of pain management are to provide adequate analgesia, prevent withdrawal, and avoid relapse or worsening of opioid use, according to Stephanie B. Jones, MD, professor and chair of anesthesiology at Albany Medical College, New York.

“[With] any patient coming in for any sort of surgery, you should be considering multimodal pain management. That applies to the opioid use disorder patient as well,” Dr. Jones said in a presentation at the virtual Annual Minimally Invasive Surgery Symposium sponsored by Global Academy for Medical Education.

“The challenge of opioid-tolerant patients or opioid abuse patients is twofold – tolerance and hyperalgesia,” Dr. Jones said. Patient tolerance changes how patients perceive pain and respond to medication. Clinicians need to consider the “opioid debt,” defined as the daily amount of opioid medication required by opioid-dependent patients to maintain their usual prehospitalization opioid levels, she explained. Also consider hyperalgesia, a change in pain perception “resulting in an increase in pain sensitivity to painful stimuli, thereby decreasing the analgesic effects of opioids,” Dr. Jones added.

A multimodal approach to pain management in patients on chronic opioids can include some opioids as appropriate, Dr. Jones said. Modulation of pain may draw on epidurals and nerve blocks, as well as managing CNS perception of pain through opioids or acetaminophen, and also using systemic options such as alpha-2 agonists and tramadol, she said.

Studies have shown that opioid abuse or dependence were associated with increased readmission rates, length of stay, and health care costs in surgery patients, said Dr. Jones. However, switching opioids and managing equivalents is complex, and “equianalgesic conversions serve only as a general guide to estimate opioid dose equivalents,” according to UpToDate’s, “Management of acute pain in the patient chronically using opioids,” she said.

Dr. Jones also addressed the issue of using hospitalization as an opportunity to help patients with untreated opioid use disorder. Medication-assisted options include methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone.

“One problem with methadone is that there are a lot of medications interactions,” she said. Buprenorphine has the advantage of being long-lasting, and is formulated with naloxone which deters injection. “Because it is a partial agonist, there is a lower risk of overdose and sedation,” and it has fewer medication interactions. However, some doctors are reluctant to prescribe it and there is some risk of medication diversion, she said.

Naltrexone is newer to the role of treating opioid use disorder, Dr. Jones said. “It can cause acute withdrawal because it is a full opioid antagonist,” she noted. However, naltrexone itself causes no withdrawal if stopped, and no respiratory depression or sedation, said Dr. Jones.

“Utilize addiction services in your hospital if you suspect a patient may be at risk for opioid use disorder,” and engage these services early, she emphasized.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Dr. Jones had no financial conflicts to disclose.

For surgical patients on chronic opioid therapy, the goals of pain management are to provide adequate analgesia, prevent withdrawal, and avoid relapse or worsening of opioid use, according to Stephanie B. Jones, MD, professor and chair of anesthesiology at Albany Medical College, New York.

“[With] any patient coming in for any sort of surgery, you should be considering multimodal pain management. That applies to the opioid use disorder patient as well,” Dr. Jones said in a presentation at the virtual Annual Minimally Invasive Surgery Symposium sponsored by Global Academy for Medical Education.

“The challenge of opioid-tolerant patients or opioid abuse patients is twofold – tolerance and hyperalgesia,” Dr. Jones said. Patient tolerance changes how patients perceive pain and respond to medication. Clinicians need to consider the “opioid debt,” defined as the daily amount of opioid medication required by opioid-dependent patients to maintain their usual prehospitalization opioid levels, she explained. Also consider hyperalgesia, a change in pain perception “resulting in an increase in pain sensitivity to painful stimuli, thereby decreasing the analgesic effects of opioids,” Dr. Jones added.

A multimodal approach to pain management in patients on chronic opioids can include some opioids as appropriate, Dr. Jones said. Modulation of pain may draw on epidurals and nerve blocks, as well as managing CNS perception of pain through opioids or acetaminophen, and also using systemic options such as alpha-2 agonists and tramadol, she said.

Studies have shown that opioid abuse or dependence were associated with increased readmission rates, length of stay, and health care costs in surgery patients, said Dr. Jones. However, switching opioids and managing equivalents is complex, and “equianalgesic conversions serve only as a general guide to estimate opioid dose equivalents,” according to UpToDate’s, “Management of acute pain in the patient chronically using opioids,” she said.

Dr. Jones also addressed the issue of using hospitalization as an opportunity to help patients with untreated opioid use disorder. Medication-assisted options include methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone.

“One problem with methadone is that there are a lot of medications interactions,” she said. Buprenorphine has the advantage of being long-lasting, and is formulated with naloxone which deters injection. “Because it is a partial agonist, there is a lower risk of overdose and sedation,” and it has fewer medication interactions. However, some doctors are reluctant to prescribe it and there is some risk of medication diversion, she said.

Naltrexone is newer to the role of treating opioid use disorder, Dr. Jones said. “It can cause acute withdrawal because it is a full opioid antagonist,” she noted. However, naltrexone itself causes no withdrawal if stopped, and no respiratory depression or sedation, said Dr. Jones.

“Utilize addiction services in your hospital if you suspect a patient may be at risk for opioid use disorder,” and engage these services early, she emphasized.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Dr. Jones had no financial conflicts to disclose.

For surgical patients on chronic opioid therapy, the goals of pain management are to provide adequate analgesia, prevent withdrawal, and avoid relapse or worsening of opioid use, according to Stephanie B. Jones, MD, professor and chair of anesthesiology at Albany Medical College, New York.

“[With] any patient coming in for any sort of surgery, you should be considering multimodal pain management. That applies to the opioid use disorder patient as well,” Dr. Jones said in a presentation at the virtual Annual Minimally Invasive Surgery Symposium sponsored by Global Academy for Medical Education.

“The challenge of opioid-tolerant patients or opioid abuse patients is twofold – tolerance and hyperalgesia,” Dr. Jones said. Patient tolerance changes how patients perceive pain and respond to medication. Clinicians need to consider the “opioid debt,” defined as the daily amount of opioid medication required by opioid-dependent patients to maintain their usual prehospitalization opioid levels, she explained. Also consider hyperalgesia, a change in pain perception “resulting in an increase in pain sensitivity to painful stimuli, thereby decreasing the analgesic effects of opioids,” Dr. Jones added.

A multimodal approach to pain management in patients on chronic opioids can include some opioids as appropriate, Dr. Jones said. Modulation of pain may draw on epidurals and nerve blocks, as well as managing CNS perception of pain through opioids or acetaminophen, and also using systemic options such as alpha-2 agonists and tramadol, she said.

Studies have shown that opioid abuse or dependence were associated with increased readmission rates, length of stay, and health care costs in surgery patients, said Dr. Jones. However, switching opioids and managing equivalents is complex, and “equianalgesic conversions serve only as a general guide to estimate opioid dose equivalents,” according to UpToDate’s, “Management of acute pain in the patient chronically using opioids,” she said.

Dr. Jones also addressed the issue of using hospitalization as an opportunity to help patients with untreated opioid use disorder. Medication-assisted options include methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone.

“One problem with methadone is that there are a lot of medications interactions,” she said. Buprenorphine has the advantage of being long-lasting, and is formulated with naloxone which deters injection. “Because it is a partial agonist, there is a lower risk of overdose and sedation,” and it has fewer medication interactions. However, some doctors are reluctant to prescribe it and there is some risk of medication diversion, she said.

Naltrexone is newer to the role of treating opioid use disorder, Dr. Jones said. “It can cause acute withdrawal because it is a full opioid antagonist,” she noted. However, naltrexone itself causes no withdrawal if stopped, and no respiratory depression or sedation, said Dr. Jones.

“Utilize addiction services in your hospital if you suspect a patient may be at risk for opioid use disorder,” and engage these services early, she emphasized.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Dr. Jones had no financial conflicts to disclose.

New EULAR recommendations for the intra-articular (IA) treatment of arthropathies aim to facilitate uniformity and quality of care for this mainstay of rheumatologic practice, according to a report on the new guidance that was presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

Until now there were no official recommendations on how best to use it in everyday practice. “This is the first time that there’s been a joint effort to develop evidence-based recommendations,” Jacqueline Usón, MD, PhD, associate professor medicine at Rey Juan Carlos University in Madrid, said in an interview. “Everything that we are saying is pretty logical, but it’s nice to see it put in recommendations based on evidence.”

IA therapy has been around for decades and is key for treating adults with a number of different conditions where synovitis, effusion, pain, or all three, are present, such as inflammatory arthritis and osteoarthritis, Dr. Usón observed during her presentation.

“Today, commonly used injectables are not only corticosteroids but also local anesthetics, hyaluronic acid, blood products, and maybe pharmaceuticals,” she said, adding that “there is a wide variation in the way intra-articular therapies are used and delivered to patients.” Health professionals also have very different views and habits depending on geographic locations and health care systems, she observed. Ironing out the variation was one of the main objectives of the recommendations.

As one of the two conveners of the EULAR task force behind the recommendations, Dr. Usón, herself a rheumatologist at University Hospital of Móstoles, pointed out that the task force brought together a range of specialties – rheumatologists, orthopedic surgeons, radiologists, nuclear medicine specialists, among others, as well as patients – to ensure that the best advice could be given.

The task force followed EULAR standard operating procedures for developing recommendations, with discussion groups, systematic literature reviews, and Delphi technique-based consensus all being employed. The literature search considered publications from 1946 up until 2019.

“We agreed on the need for more background information from health professionals and patients, so we developed two surveys: One for health professionals with 160 items, [for which] we obtained 186 responses from 26 countries; and the patient survey was made up of 44 items, translated into 10 different languages, and we obtained 200 responses,” she said.

The results of the systematic literature review and surveys were used to help form expert consensus, leading to 5 overarching principles and 11 recommendations that look at before, during, and after intra-articular therapy.
 

Five overarching principles

The first overarching principle recognizes the widespread use of IA therapies and that their use is specific to the disease that is being treated and “may not be interchangeable across indications,” Dr. Usón said. The second principle concerns improving patient-centered outcomes, which are “those that are relevant to the patient,” and include the benefits, harms, preferences, or implications for self-management.

“Contextual factors are important and contribute to the effect of IAT [intra-articular treatment],” she said, discussing the third principle. “These include effective communication, patient expectations, or settings [where the procedure takes place]. In addition, one should take into account that the route of delivery has in itself a placebo effect. We found that in different RCTs [randomized controlled trials], the pooled placebo effect of IA saline is moderate to large.”

The fourth principle looks at ensuring that patients and clinicians make an informed and shared decision, which is again highlighted by the first recommendation. The fifth, and last, overarching principle acknowledges that IA injections may be given by a range of health care professionals.
 

Advice for before, during, and after injection

Patients need to be “fully informed of the nature of the procedure, the injectable used, and potential effects – benefits and risks – [and] informed consent should be obtained and documented,” said Dr. Usón, outlining the first recommendation. “That seems common,” she said in the interview, “but when we did the survey, we realize that many patients didn’t [give consent], and the doctors didn’t even ask for it. This is why it’s a very general statement, and it’s our first recommendation. The agreement was 99%!”

The recommendations also look at the optimal settings for performing injections, such as providing a professional and private, well-lighted room, and having a resuscitation kit nearby in case patients faint. Accuracy is important, Dr. Usón said, and imaging, such as ultrasound, should be used where available to ensure accurate injection into the joint. This is an area where further research could be performed, she said, urging young rheumatologists and health professionals to consider this. “Intra-articular therapy is something that you learn and do, but you never really investigate in it,” she said.

One recommendation states that when intra-articular injections are being given to pregnant patients, the safety of injected compound must be considered, both for the mother and for the fetus. There is another recommendation on the need to perform IA injections under aseptic conditions, and another stating that patients should be offered local anesthetics, after explaining the pros and cons.

Special populations of patients are also considered, Dr. Usón said. For example, the guidance advises warning patients with diabetes of the risk of transient glycemia after IA glucocorticoids and the need to monitor their blood glucose levels carefully for a couple of days afterward.

As a rule, “IAT is not a contraindication to people with clotting or bleeding disorders, or taking antithrombotic medications,” she said, unless they are at a high risk of bleeding.

Importantly, the recommendations cover when IAT can be performed after joint replacement surgery (after at least 3 months), and the need to “avoid overuse of injected joints” while also avoiding complete immobilization for at least 24 hours afterward. The recommendations very generally cover re-injections, but not how long intervals between injections should be. When asked about interval duration after her presentation, Dr. Usón said that the usual advice is to give IA injections no more than 2-3 times a year, but it depends on the injectable.

“It wasn’t our intention to review the efficacy and the safety of the different injectables, nor to review the use of IAT in different types of joint diseases,” she said. “We do lack a lot of information, a lot of evidence in this, and I really would hope that new rheumatologists start looking into and start investigating in this topic,” she added.
 

Recommendations will increase awareness of good clinical practice

“IA injections are commonly administered in the rheumatology setting. This is because [IA injection] is often a useful treatment for acute flare of arthritis, particularly when it is limited to a few joints,” observed Ai Lyn Tan, MD, associate professor and honorary consultant rheumatologist at the Leeds (England) Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine.

IA injection “also relieves symptoms relatively quickly for patients; however, the response can be variable, and there are side effects associated with IA injections,” Dr. Tan added in an interview.

There is a lack of universally accepted recommendations, Dr. Tan observed, noting that while there might be some local guidelines on how to safely perform IA injections these were often not standardized and were subject to being continually updated to try to improve the experience for patients.

“It is therefore timely to learn about the new EULAR recommendations for IA injections. The advantage of this will be to increase awareness of good clinical practice for performing IA injections.”

Dr. Tan had no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: EULAR COVID-19 Recommendations. E-congress content available until Sept. 1, 2020.

New EULAR recommendations for the intra-articular (IA) treatment of arthropathies aim to facilitate uniformity and quality of care for this mainstay of rheumatologic practice, according to a report on the new guidance that was presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

Until now there were no official recommendations on how best to use it in everyday practice. “This is the first time that there’s been a joint effort to develop evidence-based recommendations,” Jacqueline Usón, MD, PhD, associate professor medicine at Rey Juan Carlos University in Madrid, said in an interview. “Everything that we are saying is pretty logical, but it’s nice to see it put in recommendations based on evidence.”

IA therapy has been around for decades and is key for treating adults with a number of different conditions where synovitis, effusion, pain, or all three, are present, such as inflammatory arthritis and osteoarthritis, Dr. Usón observed during her presentation.

“Today, commonly used injectables are not only corticosteroids but also local anesthetics, hyaluronic acid, blood products, and maybe pharmaceuticals,” she said, adding that “there is a wide variation in the way intra-articular therapies are used and delivered to patients.” Health professionals also have very different views and habits depending on geographic locations and health care systems, she observed. Ironing out the variation was one of the main objectives of the recommendations.

As one of the two conveners of the EULAR task force behind the recommendations, Dr. Usón, herself a rheumatologist at University Hospital of Móstoles, pointed out that the task force brought together a range of specialties – rheumatologists, orthopedic surgeons, radiologists, nuclear medicine specialists, among others, as well as patients – to ensure that the best advice could be given.

The task force followed EULAR standard operating procedures for developing recommendations, with discussion groups, systematic literature reviews, and Delphi technique-based consensus all being employed. The literature search considered publications from 1946 up until 2019.

“We agreed on the need for more background information from health professionals and patients, so we developed two surveys: One for health professionals with 160 items, [for which] we obtained 186 responses from 26 countries; and the patient survey was made up of 44 items, translated into 10 different languages, and we obtained 200 responses,” she said.

The results of the systematic literature review and surveys were used to help form expert consensus, leading to 5 overarching principles and 11 recommendations that look at before, during, and after intra-articular therapy.
 

Five overarching principles

The first overarching principle recognizes the widespread use of IA therapies and that their use is specific to the disease that is being treated and “may not be interchangeable across indications,” Dr. Usón said. The second principle concerns improving patient-centered outcomes, which are “those that are relevant to the patient,” and include the benefits, harms, preferences, or implications for self-management.

“Contextual factors are important and contribute to the effect of IAT [intra-articular treatment],” she said, discussing the third principle. “These include effective communication, patient expectations, or settings [where the procedure takes place]. In addition, one should take into account that the route of delivery has in itself a placebo effect. We found that in different RCTs [randomized controlled trials], the pooled placebo effect of IA saline is moderate to large.”

The fourth principle looks at ensuring that patients and clinicians make an informed and shared decision, which is again highlighted by the first recommendation. The fifth, and last, overarching principle acknowledges that IA injections may be given by a range of health care professionals.
 

Advice for before, during, and after injection

Patients need to be “fully informed of the nature of the procedure, the injectable used, and potential effects – benefits and risks – [and] informed consent should be obtained and documented,” said Dr. Usón, outlining the first recommendation. “That seems common,” she said in the interview, “but when we did the survey, we realize that many patients didn’t [give consent], and the doctors didn’t even ask for it. This is why it’s a very general statement, and it’s our first recommendation. The agreement was 99%!”

The recommendations also look at the optimal settings for performing injections, such as providing a professional and private, well-lighted room, and having a resuscitation kit nearby in case patients faint. Accuracy is important, Dr. Usón said, and imaging, such as ultrasound, should be used where available to ensure accurate injection into the joint. This is an area where further research could be performed, she said, urging young rheumatologists and health professionals to consider this. “Intra-articular therapy is something that you learn and do, but you never really investigate in it,” she said.

One recommendation states that when intra-articular injections are being given to pregnant patients, the safety of injected compound must be considered, both for the mother and for the fetus. There is another recommendation on the need to perform IA injections under aseptic conditions, and another stating that patients should be offered local anesthetics, after explaining the pros and cons.

Special populations of patients are also considered, Dr. Usón said. For example, the guidance advises warning patients with diabetes of the risk of transient glycemia after IA glucocorticoids and the need to monitor their blood glucose levels carefully for a couple of days afterward.

As a rule, “IAT is not a contraindication to people with clotting or bleeding disorders, or taking antithrombotic medications,” she said, unless they are at a high risk of bleeding.

Importantly, the recommendations cover when IAT can be performed after joint replacement surgery (after at least 3 months), and the need to “avoid overuse of injected joints” while also avoiding complete immobilization for at least 24 hours afterward. The recommendations very generally cover re-injections, but not how long intervals between injections should be. When asked about interval duration after her presentation, Dr. Usón said that the usual advice is to give IA injections no more than 2-3 times a year, but it depends on the injectable.

“It wasn’t our intention to review the efficacy and the safety of the different injectables, nor to review the use of IAT in different types of joint diseases,” she said. “We do lack a lot of information, a lot of evidence in this, and I really would hope that new rheumatologists start looking into and start investigating in this topic,” she added.
 

Recommendations will increase awareness of good clinical practice

“IA injections are commonly administered in the rheumatology setting. This is because [IA injection] is often a useful treatment for acute flare of arthritis, particularly when it is limited to a few joints,” observed Ai Lyn Tan, MD, associate professor and honorary consultant rheumatologist at the Leeds (England) Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine.

IA injection “also relieves symptoms relatively quickly for patients; however, the response can be variable, and there are side effects associated with IA injections,” Dr. Tan added in an interview.

There is a lack of universally accepted recommendations, Dr. Tan observed, noting that while there might be some local guidelines on how to safely perform IA injections these were often not standardized and were subject to being continually updated to try to improve the experience for patients.

“It is therefore timely to learn about the new EULAR recommendations for IA injections. The advantage of this will be to increase awareness of good clinical practice for performing IA injections.”

Dr. Tan had no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: EULAR COVID-19 Recommendations. E-congress content available until Sept. 1, 2020.

New EULAR recommendations for the intra-articular (IA) treatment of arthropathies aim to facilitate uniformity and quality of care for this mainstay of rheumatologic practice, according to a report on the new guidance that was presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

Until now there were no official recommendations on how best to use it in everyday practice. “This is the first time that there’s been a joint effort to develop evidence-based recommendations,” Jacqueline Usón, MD, PhD, associate professor medicine at Rey Juan Carlos University in Madrid, said in an interview. “Everything that we are saying is pretty logical, but it’s nice to see it put in recommendations based on evidence.”

IA therapy has been around for decades and is key for treating adults with a number of different conditions where synovitis, effusion, pain, or all three, are present, such as inflammatory arthritis and osteoarthritis, Dr. Usón observed during her presentation.

“Today, commonly used injectables are not only corticosteroids but also local anesthetics, hyaluronic acid, blood products, and maybe pharmaceuticals,” she said, adding that “there is a wide variation in the way intra-articular therapies are used and delivered to patients.” Health professionals also have very different views and habits depending on geographic locations and health care systems, she observed. Ironing out the variation was one of the main objectives of the recommendations.

As one of the two conveners of the EULAR task force behind the recommendations, Dr. Usón, herself a rheumatologist at University Hospital of Móstoles, pointed out that the task force brought together a range of specialties – rheumatologists, orthopedic surgeons, radiologists, nuclear medicine specialists, among others, as well as patients – to ensure that the best advice could be given.

The task force followed EULAR standard operating procedures for developing recommendations, with discussion groups, systematic literature reviews, and Delphi technique-based consensus all being employed. The literature search considered publications from 1946 up until 2019.

“We agreed on the need for more background information from health professionals and patients, so we developed two surveys: One for health professionals with 160 items, [for which] we obtained 186 responses from 26 countries; and the patient survey was made up of 44 items, translated into 10 different languages, and we obtained 200 responses,” she said.

The results of the systematic literature review and surveys were used to help form expert consensus, leading to 5 overarching principles and 11 recommendations that look at before, during, and after intra-articular therapy.
 

Five overarching principles

The first overarching principle recognizes the widespread use of IA therapies and that their use is specific to the disease that is being treated and “may not be interchangeable across indications,” Dr. Usón said. The second principle concerns improving patient-centered outcomes, which are “those that are relevant to the patient,” and include the benefits, harms, preferences, or implications for self-management.

“Contextual factors are important and contribute to the effect of IAT [intra-articular treatment],” she said, discussing the third principle. “These include effective communication, patient expectations, or settings [where the procedure takes place]. In addition, one should take into account that the route of delivery has in itself a placebo effect. We found that in different RCTs [randomized controlled trials], the pooled placebo effect of IA saline is moderate to large.”

The fourth principle looks at ensuring that patients and clinicians make an informed and shared decision, which is again highlighted by the first recommendation. The fifth, and last, overarching principle acknowledges that IA injections may be given by a range of health care professionals.
 

Advice for before, during, and after injection

Patients need to be “fully informed of the nature of the procedure, the injectable used, and potential effects – benefits and risks – [and] informed consent should be obtained and documented,” said Dr. Usón, outlining the first recommendation. “That seems common,” she said in the interview, “but when we did the survey, we realize that many patients didn’t [give consent], and the doctors didn’t even ask for it. This is why it’s a very general statement, and it’s our first recommendation. The agreement was 99%!”

The recommendations also look at the optimal settings for performing injections, such as providing a professional and private, well-lighted room, and having a resuscitation kit nearby in case patients faint. Accuracy is important, Dr. Usón said, and imaging, such as ultrasound, should be used where available to ensure accurate injection into the joint. This is an area where further research could be performed, she said, urging young rheumatologists and health professionals to consider this. “Intra-articular therapy is something that you learn and do, but you never really investigate in it,” she said.

One recommendation states that when intra-articular injections are being given to pregnant patients, the safety of injected compound must be considered, both for the mother and for the fetus. There is another recommendation on the need to perform IA injections under aseptic conditions, and another stating that patients should be offered local anesthetics, after explaining the pros and cons.

Special populations of patients are also considered, Dr. Usón said. For example, the guidance advises warning patients with diabetes of the risk of transient glycemia after IA glucocorticoids and the need to monitor their blood glucose levels carefully for a couple of days afterward.

As a rule, “IAT is not a contraindication to people with clotting or bleeding disorders, or taking antithrombotic medications,” she said, unless they are at a high risk of bleeding.

Importantly, the recommendations cover when IAT can be performed after joint replacement surgery (after at least 3 months), and the need to “avoid overuse of injected joints” while also avoiding complete immobilization for at least 24 hours afterward. The recommendations very generally cover re-injections, but not how long intervals between injections should be. When asked about interval duration after her presentation, Dr. Usón said that the usual advice is to give IA injections no more than 2-3 times a year, but it depends on the injectable.

“It wasn’t our intention to review the efficacy and the safety of the different injectables, nor to review the use of IAT in different types of joint diseases,” she said. “We do lack a lot of information, a lot of evidence in this, and I really would hope that new rheumatologists start looking into and start investigating in this topic,” she added.
 

Recommendations will increase awareness of good clinical practice

“IA injections are commonly administered in the rheumatology setting. This is because [IA injection] is often a useful treatment for acute flare of arthritis, particularly when it is limited to a few joints,” observed Ai Lyn Tan, MD, associate professor and honorary consultant rheumatologist at the Leeds (England) Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine.

IA injection “also relieves symptoms relatively quickly for patients; however, the response can be variable, and there are side effects associated with IA injections,” Dr. Tan added in an interview.

There is a lack of universally accepted recommendations, Dr. Tan observed, noting that while there might be some local guidelines on how to safely perform IA injections these were often not standardized and were subject to being continually updated to try to improve the experience for patients.

“It is therefore timely to learn about the new EULAR recommendations for IA injections. The advantage of this will be to increase awareness of good clinical practice for performing IA injections.”

Dr. Tan had no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: EULAR COVID-19 Recommendations. E-congress content available until Sept. 1, 2020.

This patient’s circular ecchymotic patches were due to cupping. One of the clues that this was iatrogenic was the regular and repeated pattern on the skin.

Cupping is a centuries old treatment for pain relief (among other things) that involves applying glass globes or other hollow materials to the skin to create a vacuum. Traditionally, this vacuum is created by heating the air inside the vessel and then holding the vessel in place as the air cools. Practitioners may also use more modern instruments to induce the vacuum that are similar to those used to assist in vaginal deliveries. The mechanical devices leave these circular ecchymotic marks. The ecchymosis fades over time, and this procedure has been shown to significantly reduce myofascial neck and back pain in small trials.

It is important to recognize geometric patterns that are iatrogenic or due to abuse when evaluating skin findings. If skin findings do not follow dermatomal distributions, typical exanthem, or other classic patterns or presentations, there is the possibility that the pattern may be the result of neglect or abuse. On inspection, consider whether an odd pattern may have been caused from a belt buckle, striking instrument, furniture, medical equipment, or a hand strike.

This patient’s findings were consistent with his history of visiting a physical therapist for cupping. No treatment was required; the patient’s back pain from his car accident was improving, and the cupping marks were not troubling him.

‌

Photo and text courtesy of Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque.

This patient’s circular ecchymotic patches were due to cupping. One of the clues that this was iatrogenic was the regular and repeated pattern on the skin.

Cupping is a centuries old treatment for pain relief (among other things) that involves applying glass globes or other hollow materials to the skin to create a vacuum. Traditionally, this vacuum is created by heating the air inside the vessel and then holding the vessel in place as the air cools. Practitioners may also use more modern instruments to induce the vacuum that are similar to those used to assist in vaginal deliveries. The mechanical devices leave these circular ecchymotic marks. The ecchymosis fades over time, and this procedure has been shown to significantly reduce myofascial neck and back pain in small trials.

It is important to recognize geometric patterns that are iatrogenic or due to abuse when evaluating skin findings. If skin findings do not follow dermatomal distributions, typical exanthem, or other classic patterns or presentations, there is the possibility that the pattern may be the result of neglect or abuse. On inspection, consider whether an odd pattern may have been caused from a belt buckle, striking instrument, furniture, medical equipment, or a hand strike.

This patient’s findings were consistent with his history of visiting a physical therapist for cupping. No treatment was required; the patient’s back pain from his car accident was improving, and the cupping marks were not troubling him.

‌

Photo and text courtesy of Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque.

This patient’s circular ecchymotic patches were due to cupping. One of the clues that this was iatrogenic was the regular and repeated pattern on the skin.

Cupping is a centuries old treatment for pain relief (among other things) that involves applying glass globes or other hollow materials to the skin to create a vacuum. Traditionally, this vacuum is created by heating the air inside the vessel and then holding the vessel in place as the air cools. Practitioners may also use more modern instruments to induce the vacuum that are similar to those used to assist in vaginal deliveries. The mechanical devices leave these circular ecchymotic marks. The ecchymosis fades over time, and this procedure has been shown to significantly reduce myofascial neck and back pain in small trials.

It is important to recognize geometric patterns that are iatrogenic or due to abuse when evaluating skin findings. If skin findings do not follow dermatomal distributions, typical exanthem, or other classic patterns or presentations, there is the possibility that the pattern may be the result of neglect or abuse. On inspection, consider whether an odd pattern may have been caused from a belt buckle, striking instrument, furniture, medical equipment, or a hand strike.

This patient’s findings were consistent with his history of visiting a physical therapist for cupping. No treatment was required; the patient’s back pain from his car accident was improving, and the cupping marks were not troubling him.

‌

Photo and text courtesy of Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque.