Pain

PHILADELPHIA – Posttraumatic headache may be associated with quantitative changes in photosensitivity and allodynia, according to results of a pilot study presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society. The findings suggest that patients with posttraumatic headache have abnormal, multimodal sensory processing, said Amaal J. Starling, MD, a neurologist at Mayo Clinic in Phoenix.

Mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a growing public health problem. Headache is the most common symptom after mild TBI, and often the most debilitating symptom for these patients. No Food and Drug Administration–approved treatments are available for patients with posttraumatic headache, and about three-quarters of these patients report that current treatments bring them no relief.

Identifying novel targets and developing new treatment options will require a deeper understanding of the pathophysiology of posttraumatic headache, said Dr. Starling. She and her colleagues conducted a pilot study to characterize allodynia, cutaneous heat pain thresholds, photophobia, and light-induced pain thresholds objectively in patients with posttraumatic headache, compared with healthy controls.
 

Participants were exposed to a bright-light stressor

The researchers enrolled 20 patients between ages 18 years and 65 years with posttraumatic headache attributed to mild TBI in their study. They matched these patients by age with 20 healthy controls. Dr. Starling and colleagues evaluated all participants prospectively using the Allodynia Symptom Checklist (ASC-12), Photosensitivity Assessment Questionnaire (PAQ), State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), and Beck Depression Inventory (BDI).

The investigators performed quantitative sensory testing to measure each participant’s cutaneous forearm heat pain threshold. Using a progressive light stimulation device, they quantified each participant’s light-induced pain threshold. Finally, Dr. Starling and colleagues obtained participants’ cutaneous heat pain thresholds immediately after, 10 minutes after, and 40 minutes after exposing them to a bright-light stressor.

The researchers found no significant differences between groups in age, gender, or race. The population’s average age was 41 years. Approximately 70% of the sample was female. Among participants with posttraumatic headache, the average time since the onset of posttraumatic headache was 46 months. The average number of headache days per month in that group was 17.2, which represented “a significantly high headache burden,” said Dr. Starling. Approximately 80% of patients with posttraumatic headache had headaches with a migraine phenotype.
 

Patients’ pain thresholds were lower

STAI and BDI scores were significantly higher among patients with posttraumatic headache, compared with controls. Mean PAQ score was 0.62 among patients and 0.24 among controls, representing significantly greater photophobia symptom severity among patients, said Dr. Starling.

Light-induced pain thresholds were significantly lower in patients with posttraumatic headache (median, 90.5 lux), compared with healthy controls (median, 863.5 lux), independent of depression and anxiety. Allodynia symptom severity was significantly higher in patients with posttraumatic headache (mean ASC-12 score, 5.7), compared with controls (mean ASC-12 score, 0.98).

In addition, the mean baseline cutaneous heat pain threshold was 40.8° C in patients with posttraumatic headache and 44.4° C in healthy controls. When participants were subjected to the bright-light stressor, the immediate change in heat pain threshold was significant in patients with posttraumatic headache (−1.9° C), compared with healthy controls. The difference between groups was not significant at 10 and 40 minutes after exposure to the stressor, however. The light intensity inducing moderate pain was 688 lux in patients with posttraumatic headache, compared with 6,000 lux in healthy controls.

“Our next steps are going to be replicating this [study] in a larger population, as well as determining whether any type of intervention would change these different types of sensory sensitivities and thresholds,” said Dr. Starling. She and her colleagues will use this human research model to examine whether posttraumatic headache differs from other headache disorders such as migraine and to examine potential differences between acute and persistent posttraumatic headache.

The study was funded through an intramural Mayo Clinic early career research award.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Starling AJ et al. AHS 2019. Abstract OR14.

PHILADELPHIA – Posttraumatic headache may be associated with quantitative changes in photosensitivity and allodynia, according to results of a pilot study presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society. The findings suggest that patients with posttraumatic headache have abnormal, multimodal sensory processing, said Amaal J. Starling, MD, a neurologist at Mayo Clinic in Phoenix.

Mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a growing public health problem. Headache is the most common symptom after mild TBI, and often the most debilitating symptom for these patients. No Food and Drug Administration–approved treatments are available for patients with posttraumatic headache, and about three-quarters of these patients report that current treatments bring them no relief.

Identifying novel targets and developing new treatment options will require a deeper understanding of the pathophysiology of posttraumatic headache, said Dr. Starling. She and her colleagues conducted a pilot study to characterize allodynia, cutaneous heat pain thresholds, photophobia, and light-induced pain thresholds objectively in patients with posttraumatic headache, compared with healthy controls.
 

Participants were exposed to a bright-light stressor

The researchers enrolled 20 patients between ages 18 years and 65 years with posttraumatic headache attributed to mild TBI in their study. They matched these patients by age with 20 healthy controls. Dr. Starling and colleagues evaluated all participants prospectively using the Allodynia Symptom Checklist (ASC-12), Photosensitivity Assessment Questionnaire (PAQ), State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), and Beck Depression Inventory (BDI).

The investigators performed quantitative sensory testing to measure each participant’s cutaneous forearm heat pain threshold. Using a progressive light stimulation device, they quantified each participant’s light-induced pain threshold. Finally, Dr. Starling and colleagues obtained participants’ cutaneous heat pain thresholds immediately after, 10 minutes after, and 40 minutes after exposing them to a bright-light stressor.

The researchers found no significant differences between groups in age, gender, or race. The population’s average age was 41 years. Approximately 70% of the sample was female. Among participants with posttraumatic headache, the average time since the onset of posttraumatic headache was 46 months. The average number of headache days per month in that group was 17.2, which represented “a significantly high headache burden,” said Dr. Starling. Approximately 80% of patients with posttraumatic headache had headaches with a migraine phenotype.
 

Patients’ pain thresholds were lower

STAI and BDI scores were significantly higher among patients with posttraumatic headache, compared with controls. Mean PAQ score was 0.62 among patients and 0.24 among controls, representing significantly greater photophobia symptom severity among patients, said Dr. Starling.

Light-induced pain thresholds were significantly lower in patients with posttraumatic headache (median, 90.5 lux), compared with healthy controls (median, 863.5 lux), independent of depression and anxiety. Allodynia symptom severity was significantly higher in patients with posttraumatic headache (mean ASC-12 score, 5.7), compared with controls (mean ASC-12 score, 0.98).

In addition, the mean baseline cutaneous heat pain threshold was 40.8° C in patients with posttraumatic headache and 44.4° C in healthy controls. When participants were subjected to the bright-light stressor, the immediate change in heat pain threshold was significant in patients with posttraumatic headache (−1.9° C), compared with healthy controls. The difference between groups was not significant at 10 and 40 minutes after exposure to the stressor, however. The light intensity inducing moderate pain was 688 lux in patients with posttraumatic headache, compared with 6,000 lux in healthy controls.

“Our next steps are going to be replicating this [study] in a larger population, as well as determining whether any type of intervention would change these different types of sensory sensitivities and thresholds,” said Dr. Starling. She and her colleagues will use this human research model to examine whether posttraumatic headache differs from other headache disorders such as migraine and to examine potential differences between acute and persistent posttraumatic headache.

The study was funded through an intramural Mayo Clinic early career research award.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Starling AJ et al. AHS 2019. Abstract OR14.

PHILADELPHIA – Posttraumatic headache may be associated with quantitative changes in photosensitivity and allodynia, according to results of a pilot study presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society. The findings suggest that patients with posttraumatic headache have abnormal, multimodal sensory processing, said Amaal J. Starling, MD, a neurologist at Mayo Clinic in Phoenix.

Mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a growing public health problem. Headache is the most common symptom after mild TBI, and often the most debilitating symptom for these patients. No Food and Drug Administration–approved treatments are available for patients with posttraumatic headache, and about three-quarters of these patients report that current treatments bring them no relief.

Identifying novel targets and developing new treatment options will require a deeper understanding of the pathophysiology of posttraumatic headache, said Dr. Starling. She and her colleagues conducted a pilot study to characterize allodynia, cutaneous heat pain thresholds, photophobia, and light-induced pain thresholds objectively in patients with posttraumatic headache, compared with healthy controls.
 

Participants were exposed to a bright-light stressor

The researchers enrolled 20 patients between ages 18 years and 65 years with posttraumatic headache attributed to mild TBI in their study. They matched these patients by age with 20 healthy controls. Dr. Starling and colleagues evaluated all participants prospectively using the Allodynia Symptom Checklist (ASC-12), Photosensitivity Assessment Questionnaire (PAQ), State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), and Beck Depression Inventory (BDI).

The investigators performed quantitative sensory testing to measure each participant’s cutaneous forearm heat pain threshold. Using a progressive light stimulation device, they quantified each participant’s light-induced pain threshold. Finally, Dr. Starling and colleagues obtained participants’ cutaneous heat pain thresholds immediately after, 10 minutes after, and 40 minutes after exposing them to a bright-light stressor.

The researchers found no significant differences between groups in age, gender, or race. The population’s average age was 41 years. Approximately 70% of the sample was female. Among participants with posttraumatic headache, the average time since the onset of posttraumatic headache was 46 months. The average number of headache days per month in that group was 17.2, which represented “a significantly high headache burden,” said Dr. Starling. Approximately 80% of patients with posttraumatic headache had headaches with a migraine phenotype.
 

Patients’ pain thresholds were lower

STAI and BDI scores were significantly higher among patients with posttraumatic headache, compared with controls. Mean PAQ score was 0.62 among patients and 0.24 among controls, representing significantly greater photophobia symptom severity among patients, said Dr. Starling.

Light-induced pain thresholds were significantly lower in patients with posttraumatic headache (median, 90.5 lux), compared with healthy controls (median, 863.5 lux), independent of depression and anxiety. Allodynia symptom severity was significantly higher in patients with posttraumatic headache (mean ASC-12 score, 5.7), compared with controls (mean ASC-12 score, 0.98).

In addition, the mean baseline cutaneous heat pain threshold was 40.8° C in patients with posttraumatic headache and 44.4° C in healthy controls. When participants were subjected to the bright-light stressor, the immediate change in heat pain threshold was significant in patients with posttraumatic headache (−1.9° C), compared with healthy controls. The difference between groups was not significant at 10 and 40 minutes after exposure to the stressor, however. The light intensity inducing moderate pain was 688 lux in patients with posttraumatic headache, compared with 6,000 lux in healthy controls.

“Our next steps are going to be replicating this [study] in a larger population, as well as determining whether any type of intervention would change these different types of sensory sensitivities and thresholds,” said Dr. Starling. She and her colleagues will use this human research model to examine whether posttraumatic headache differs from other headache disorders such as migraine and to examine potential differences between acute and persistent posttraumatic headache.

The study was funded through an intramural Mayo Clinic early career research award.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Starling AJ et al. AHS 2019. Abstract OR14.

Aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) and its progenitors are valuable medications with a history spanning at least 4 millennia. An enormous number of patients take aspirin for a variety of reasons, and managing their therapy around the time of surgery can be challenging, as Drs. Prabhakaran and Whinney discuss in this issue.¹ Even after 4,000 years, we are still learning about these remarkable drugs.

See related article

LEARNING WHAT SALICYLATES ARE

LEARNING (AND IGNORING) WHAT ASPIRIN CAN DO

In the 1940s, a general practitioner in California named Lawrence Craven recognized that many of his post-tonsillectomy patients had to be hospitalized for bleeding after he started recommending they use aspirin-containing chewing gum for pain relief.⁴ Under the then-debated hypothesis that myocardial infarction (MI) involves thrombosis, he recommended that adult men should take aspirin daily. He believed that women had lower rates of MI because they were more likely to take aspirin, something that men did not view as a “masculine” thing to do.

In a series of letters in journals such as the Mississippi Valley Medical Journal,⁵ Craven reported his observations of very low rates of MI and no strokes in aspirin users. Given the nonrigorous nature of his research and the obscure journals in which he published, his findings languished for many years. Ironically, he died of an MI in 1957.

LEARNING HOW ASPIRIN WORKS (AND A FEW OTHER THINGS)

The history of aspirin research illustrates how the fields of hemostasis and inflammation are now linked.

In the late 1960s, Weiss et al⁶ reported that aspirin rapidly and irreversibly inhibits platelet aggregation. In parallel, using biological assays in work that eventually led to the Nobel Prize, Vane⁷ discovered that inflammation involves the de novo synthesis of prostaglandins and that aspirin directly inhibits this synthesis. Further work connecting these lines of investigation led us to understand that platelet aggregation is enhanced by the prostaglandin derivative thromboxane A2, produced by cyclooxygenase-1, and that aspirin irreversibly inhibits this enzyme by acetylation.

LEARNING WHEN TO USE ASPIRIN

After decades of research ranging from the Physicians’ Health Study to well-named trials such as ARRIVE, ASCEND, and ASPREE, we now know that taking daily low doses of aspirin for primary prevention can reduce the risk of cardiovascular events and may reduce the risk of colorectal cancer—but at the cost of an increased risk of bleeding.⁸

Which patients will gain the most benefit and incur the least risk is still debated. What is certain, however, is that aspirin has an important role in acute coronary syndromes, secondary prevention of MI and stroke, and prevention of thrombosis after coronary stent placement. In the perioperative setting, we are learning that aspirin may benefit patients with myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery, a recently described clinical entity associated with surprisingly high mortality rates.^9,10

The perioperative period is a dangerous time—surgical stress, hypercoagulability, inflammation, pain, and hemodynamic changes predispose to plaque rupture and supply-demand imbalance. It is therefore logical to hope aspirin would provide protection for at-risk patients in this context.

Unfortunately, results from the second Perioperative Ischemic Evaluation trial have dampened enthusiasm.¹¹ Aspirin has now joined clonidine and beta-blockers on the list of interventions that probably do not reduce perioperative cardiovascular mortality rates. Other than protecting against stent thrombosis, aspirin’s main perioperative effect is to increase bleeding. Consequently, some surgical procedures mandate withdrawal of aspirin.

WHAT WE STILL NEED TO LEARN

Over the years, we have learned the broad outlines of using aspirin to prevent and treat cardiovascular disease, to relieve pain and inflammation (its original purpose), and to prevent stent thrombosis. 

However, many details remain to be filled in. We need to better define groups who should and should not take aspirin for primary prevention. We also need to understand aspirin’s role in cancer chemoprevention, to find better ways to mitigate its undesirable effects, and to study its role in treating myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery.

Finally, we need to determine which (if any) patients without coronary stents will benefit from continuing their aspirin perioperatively or even initiating aspirin therapy preoperatively.

Will humanity still be using salicylates 4,000 years from now? Probably not. But what we have learned and will continue to learn from this remarkable group of medications will certainly inform new and better therapies in the years to come.

Aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) and its progenitors are valuable medications with a history spanning at least 4 millennia. An enormous number of patients take aspirin for a variety of reasons, and managing their therapy around the time of surgery can be challenging, as Drs. Prabhakaran and Whinney discuss in this issue.¹ Even after 4,000 years, we are still learning about these remarkable drugs.

See related article

LEARNING WHAT SALICYLATES ARE

LEARNING (AND IGNORING) WHAT ASPIRIN CAN DO

In the 1940s, a general practitioner in California named Lawrence Craven recognized that many of his post-tonsillectomy patients had to be hospitalized for bleeding after he started recommending they use aspirin-containing chewing gum for pain relief.⁴ Under the then-debated hypothesis that myocardial infarction (MI) involves thrombosis, he recommended that adult men should take aspirin daily. He believed that women had lower rates of MI because they were more likely to take aspirin, something that men did not view as a “masculine” thing to do.

In a series of letters in journals such as the Mississippi Valley Medical Journal,⁵ Craven reported his observations of very low rates of MI and no strokes in aspirin users. Given the nonrigorous nature of his research and the obscure journals in which he published, his findings languished for many years. Ironically, he died of an MI in 1957.

LEARNING HOW ASPIRIN WORKS (AND A FEW OTHER THINGS)

The history of aspirin research illustrates how the fields of hemostasis and inflammation are now linked.

In the late 1960s, Weiss et al⁶ reported that aspirin rapidly and irreversibly inhibits platelet aggregation. In parallel, using biological assays in work that eventually led to the Nobel Prize, Vane⁷ discovered that inflammation involves the de novo synthesis of prostaglandins and that aspirin directly inhibits this synthesis. Further work connecting these lines of investigation led us to understand that platelet aggregation is enhanced by the prostaglandin derivative thromboxane A2, produced by cyclooxygenase-1, and that aspirin irreversibly inhibits this enzyme by acetylation.

LEARNING WHEN TO USE ASPIRIN

After decades of research ranging from the Physicians’ Health Study to well-named trials such as ARRIVE, ASCEND, and ASPREE, we now know that taking daily low doses of aspirin for primary prevention can reduce the risk of cardiovascular events and may reduce the risk of colorectal cancer—but at the cost of an increased risk of bleeding.⁸

Which patients will gain the most benefit and incur the least risk is still debated. What is certain, however, is that aspirin has an important role in acute coronary syndromes, secondary prevention of MI and stroke, and prevention of thrombosis after coronary stent placement. In the perioperative setting, we are learning that aspirin may benefit patients with myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery, a recently described clinical entity associated with surprisingly high mortality rates.^9,10

The perioperative period is a dangerous time—surgical stress, hypercoagulability, inflammation, pain, and hemodynamic changes predispose to plaque rupture and supply-demand imbalance. It is therefore logical to hope aspirin would provide protection for at-risk patients in this context.

Unfortunately, results from the second Perioperative Ischemic Evaluation trial have dampened enthusiasm.¹¹ Aspirin has now joined clonidine and beta-blockers on the list of interventions that probably do not reduce perioperative cardiovascular mortality rates. Other than protecting against stent thrombosis, aspirin’s main perioperative effect is to increase bleeding. Consequently, some surgical procedures mandate withdrawal of aspirin.

WHAT WE STILL NEED TO LEARN

Over the years, we have learned the broad outlines of using aspirin to prevent and treat cardiovascular disease, to relieve pain and inflammation (its original purpose), and to prevent stent thrombosis. 

However, many details remain to be filled in. We need to better define groups who should and should not take aspirin for primary prevention. We also need to understand aspirin’s role in cancer chemoprevention, to find better ways to mitigate its undesirable effects, and to study its role in treating myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery.

Finally, we need to determine which (if any) patients without coronary stents will benefit from continuing their aspirin perioperatively or even initiating aspirin therapy preoperatively.

Will humanity still be using salicylates 4,000 years from now? Probably not. But what we have learned and will continue to learn from this remarkable group of medications will certainly inform new and better therapies in the years to come.

Aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) and its progenitors are valuable medications with a history spanning at least 4 millennia. An enormous number of patients take aspirin for a variety of reasons, and managing their therapy around the time of surgery can be challenging, as Drs. Prabhakaran and Whinney discuss in this issue.¹ Even after 4,000 years, we are still learning about these remarkable drugs.

See related article

LEARNING WHAT SALICYLATES ARE

LEARNING (AND IGNORING) WHAT ASPIRIN CAN DO

In the 1940s, a general practitioner in California named Lawrence Craven recognized that many of his post-tonsillectomy patients had to be hospitalized for bleeding after he started recommending they use aspirin-containing chewing gum for pain relief.⁴ Under the then-debated hypothesis that myocardial infarction (MI) involves thrombosis, he recommended that adult men should take aspirin daily. He believed that women had lower rates of MI because they were more likely to take aspirin, something that men did not view as a “masculine” thing to do.

In a series of letters in journals such as the Mississippi Valley Medical Journal,⁵ Craven reported his observations of very low rates of MI and no strokes in aspirin users. Given the nonrigorous nature of his research and the obscure journals in which he published, his findings languished for many years. Ironically, he died of an MI in 1957.

LEARNING HOW ASPIRIN WORKS (AND A FEW OTHER THINGS)

The history of aspirin research illustrates how the fields of hemostasis and inflammation are now linked.

In the late 1960s, Weiss et al⁶ reported that aspirin rapidly and irreversibly inhibits platelet aggregation. In parallel, using biological assays in work that eventually led to the Nobel Prize, Vane⁷ discovered that inflammation involves the de novo synthesis of prostaglandins and that aspirin directly inhibits this synthesis. Further work connecting these lines of investigation led us to understand that platelet aggregation is enhanced by the prostaglandin derivative thromboxane A2, produced by cyclooxygenase-1, and that aspirin irreversibly inhibits this enzyme by acetylation.

LEARNING WHEN TO USE ASPIRIN

After decades of research ranging from the Physicians’ Health Study to well-named trials such as ARRIVE, ASCEND, and ASPREE, we now know that taking daily low doses of aspirin for primary prevention can reduce the risk of cardiovascular events and may reduce the risk of colorectal cancer—but at the cost of an increased risk of bleeding.⁸

Which patients will gain the most benefit and incur the least risk is still debated. What is certain, however, is that aspirin has an important role in acute coronary syndromes, secondary prevention of MI and stroke, and prevention of thrombosis after coronary stent placement. In the perioperative setting, we are learning that aspirin may benefit patients with myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery, a recently described clinical entity associated with surprisingly high mortality rates.^9,10

The perioperative period is a dangerous time—surgical stress, hypercoagulability, inflammation, pain, and hemodynamic changes predispose to plaque rupture and supply-demand imbalance. It is therefore logical to hope aspirin would provide protection for at-risk patients in this context.

Unfortunately, results from the second Perioperative Ischemic Evaluation trial have dampened enthusiasm.¹¹ Aspirin has now joined clonidine and beta-blockers on the list of interventions that probably do not reduce perioperative cardiovascular mortality rates. Other than protecting against stent thrombosis, aspirin’s main perioperative effect is to increase bleeding. Consequently, some surgical procedures mandate withdrawal of aspirin.

WHAT WE STILL NEED TO LEARN

Over the years, we have learned the broad outlines of using aspirin to prevent and treat cardiovascular disease, to relieve pain and inflammation (its original purpose), and to prevent stent thrombosis. 

However, many details remain to be filled in. We need to better define groups who should and should not take aspirin for primary prevention. We also need to understand aspirin’s role in cancer chemoprevention, to find better ways to mitigate its undesirable effects, and to study its role in treating myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery.

Finally, we need to determine which (if any) patients without coronary stents will benefit from continuing their aspirin perioperatively or even initiating aspirin therapy preoperatively.

Will humanity still be using salicylates 4,000 years from now? Probably not. But what we have learned and will continue to learn from this remarkable group of medications will certainly inform new and better therapies in the years to come.

When the Joint Commission dubbed pain assessment the “fifth vital sign” in 2001 and insisted that all outpatients be assessed for pain at each office visit, they had no idea of the unintended consequences that would result.

The problem they wanted to solve was undertreatment of postoperative pain, but the problem they helped create far outweighed any benefit to hospitalized patients. They would have been wise to listen to R.E.M.’s song “Everybody Hurts” and recognize that pain is a fact of life that doesn’t always require medical intervention. Combined with aggressive marketing of opioids by pharmaceutical companies, these 2 factors led to the opioid epidemic we currently find ourselves in.

We were part of the problem and must be part of the solution.

The good news is that there has been a significant drop in opioid prescribing in recent years. Between 2014 and 2017, opioid prescriptions declined from 7.4% to 6.4%, based on a national electronic health record review.¹ Reducing opioid prescribing for patients with chronic noncancer pain, however, is difficult. Although there are no truly evidence-based methods, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has provided expert advice on improving opioid prescribing, and Drs. Mendoza and Russell provide thoughtful recommendations for tapering opioids in patients on chronic therapy in this issue of JFP.

In addition, Patchett et al describe their experience with a practice-wide approach to reducing chronic opioid prescribing in their practice at Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, Ariz. Using a systematic approach, they were able to reduce the number of patients on chronic opioid therapy by 22%.

And there is more good news from a 2018 JAMA study.²Patients with moderate to severe chronic back, hip, or knee pain were randomized to either an opioid-based pain treatment regimen or a nonopioid-based plan. While pain-related functional status was similar in both groups after 12 months, the patients in the nonopioid group had significantly better pain control than those in the opioid group. Amazing to find that the nonopioid approach was superior! Who would have guessed?

All family physicians should share the results of this study with their chronic pain patients and follow Pachett’s lead in a practice-wide approach to reducing opioid prescribing. We were part of the problem and must be part of the solution.

When the Joint Commission dubbed pain assessment the “fifth vital sign” in 2001 and insisted that all outpatients be assessed for pain at each office visit, they had no idea of the unintended consequences that would result.

The problem they wanted to solve was undertreatment of postoperative pain, but the problem they helped create far outweighed any benefit to hospitalized patients. They would have been wise to listen to R.E.M.’s song “Everybody Hurts” and recognize that pain is a fact of life that doesn’t always require medical intervention. Combined with aggressive marketing of opioids by pharmaceutical companies, these 2 factors led to the opioid epidemic we currently find ourselves in.

We were part of the problem and must be part of the solution.

The good news is that there has been a significant drop in opioid prescribing in recent years. Between 2014 and 2017, opioid prescriptions declined from 7.4% to 6.4%, based on a national electronic health record review.¹ Reducing opioid prescribing for patients with chronic noncancer pain, however, is difficult. Although there are no truly evidence-based methods, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has provided expert advice on improving opioid prescribing, and Drs. Mendoza and Russell provide thoughtful recommendations for tapering opioids in patients on chronic therapy in this issue of JFP.

In addition, Patchett et al describe their experience with a practice-wide approach to reducing chronic opioid prescribing in their practice at Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, Ariz. Using a systematic approach, they were able to reduce the number of patients on chronic opioid therapy by 22%.

And there is more good news from a 2018 JAMA study.²Patients with moderate to severe chronic back, hip, or knee pain were randomized to either an opioid-based pain treatment regimen or a nonopioid-based plan. While pain-related functional status was similar in both groups after 12 months, the patients in the nonopioid group had significantly better pain control than those in the opioid group. Amazing to find that the nonopioid approach was superior! Who would have guessed?

All family physicians should share the results of this study with their chronic pain patients and follow Pachett’s lead in a practice-wide approach to reducing opioid prescribing. We were part of the problem and must be part of the solution.

When the Joint Commission dubbed pain assessment the “fifth vital sign” in 2001 and insisted that all outpatients be assessed for pain at each office visit, they had no idea of the unintended consequences that would result.

The problem they wanted to solve was undertreatment of postoperative pain, but the problem they helped create far outweighed any benefit to hospitalized patients. They would have been wise to listen to R.E.M.’s song “Everybody Hurts” and recognize that pain is a fact of life that doesn’t always require medical intervention. Combined with aggressive marketing of opioids by pharmaceutical companies, these 2 factors led to the opioid epidemic we currently find ourselves in.

We were part of the problem and must be part of the solution.

The good news is that there has been a significant drop in opioid prescribing in recent years. Between 2014 and 2017, opioid prescriptions declined from 7.4% to 6.4%, based on a national electronic health record review.¹ Reducing opioid prescribing for patients with chronic noncancer pain, however, is difficult. Although there are no truly evidence-based methods, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has provided expert advice on improving opioid prescribing, and Drs. Mendoza and Russell provide thoughtful recommendations for tapering opioids in patients on chronic therapy in this issue of JFP.

In addition, Patchett et al describe their experience with a practice-wide approach to reducing chronic opioid prescribing in their practice at Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, Ariz. Using a systematic approach, they were able to reduce the number of patients on chronic opioid therapy by 22%.

And there is more good news from a 2018 JAMA study.²Patients with moderate to severe chronic back, hip, or knee pain were randomized to either an opioid-based pain treatment regimen or a nonopioid-based plan. While pain-related functional status was similar in both groups after 12 months, the patients in the nonopioid group had significantly better pain control than those in the opioid group. Amazing to find that the nonopioid approach was superior! Who would have guessed?

All family physicians should share the results of this study with their chronic pain patients and follow Pachett’s lead in a practice-wide approach to reducing opioid prescribing. We were part of the problem and must be part of the solution.

The opioid crisis has brought added scrutiny to opioid prescribing, particularly to health care providers, whom many blame for the genesis of the opioid overdose epidemic. Family physicians are acutely aware of these complexities: By sheer volume, family physicians prescribe more opioid analgesics than any other subspecialist.¹

Overwhelmed by opioid prescriptions

Because of a complexity of factors (notably, the influence of the US pharmaceutical industry), the quantity of opioid prescriptions has risen substantially—enough so that, in 2010, opioids were prescribed in great enough quantity to medicate every American around the clock for a month.² Among people who began abusing opioids in the 2000s, 75% reported that their first opioid was a prescription drug; this is a shift from prior decades, when heroin was the gateway to opioid addiction.³ As the reality of the size of the opioid problem sunk in, many were hopeful that the epidemic would reverse itself as quickly as it began if the medical community would simply prescribe fewer opioids.

©Stuart Bradford

Since 2010, the opioid overdose fatality rate has risen dramatically, even though prescription opioid overdose mortality has leveled off, or even declined. ² One explanation for this paradox? As availability of prescription opioids declined, people suffering from an underlying opioid use disorder (OUD) turned instead first to heroin, then later to potent fentanyl analogues to fuel their addiction. In most communities, the prevalence of fentanyl analogues—alone or more commonly mixed with other opioids—has driven the staggering rise in opioid-related fatalities in recent years.

No question: Prescription opioids played a critical role in the origins of this epidemic, but just withdrawing prescriptions will not result in marked reduction in the epidemic. This quandary is no more apparent than in primary care, where the considerable risk of continuing opioids—especially at high dosages—must be weighed against the potential risks of discontinuation. Adding to this dilemma are lack of access to treatment for patients with an OUD and the continued stigma and misunderstanding of substance use disorders.

In this article, we describe the challenges of long-term opioid use and review necessary protocols and precautions for maintaining or tapering an opioid regimen in patients who suffer chronic pain.

Managing chronic pain is fraught with complexity

Chronic pain is both real and a disease in its own right. Although definitions of chronic pain vary, pain that lasts > 3 months or past the duration of normal tissue healing is typically considered chronic.⁴ Approximations of prevalence vary, but in 1 study that examined a representative sample, it was estimated that 14.6% of US adults experience chronic pain.⁵

Patients who report symptoms or a history of chronic pain can elicit negative reactions from physicians—stemming from our biases, which can inadvertently provoke emotions on our part.⁶ Unflattering portrayals of patients in the media can further fuel unwarranted biases and prejudices.⁷

Continue to: Preventing, assessing, and treating...

Preventing, assessing, and treating chronic pain can be difficult, at the level of both the individual physician and the larger system of care, even without adding in complications of the opioid epidemic. For racial and ethnic minority groups, women, older people, and people with cognitive impairment or cancer, pain can be underrecognized and go inadequately treated.

Among people who began abusing opioids in the 2000s, 75% said that their first opioid was a prescription drug; in prior decades, heroin was the gateway to opioid addiction.

Chronic pain itself has clinical, psychological, and social consequences and is associated with limitations in activity, work productivity, quality of life, and stigma.⁸ Treatment of chronic pain—with opioids or other modalities—remains an important component of patient-centered primary care. Interestingly, however, many patients struggling through chronic pain report that efforts to curb the opioid epidemic have inadvertently led to lower-quality pain management and, therefore, understandable concern among patients whose chronic pain is well managed with opioid pain medications.^9,10

When is it appropriate to continue opioids for chronic pain?

Apart from the treatment of active cancer, palliative care, and end-of-life care, the appropriate use of opioids for chronic and acute pain has become clouded in recent years. To assist with this problem, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued guidelines in 2016 for primary care physicians who are faced with this clinical dilemma.¹¹ The guidelines (1) address circumstances in which it is safe to consider opioid prescribing and (2) provide ongoing reassessment of indications for chronic opioid prescribing within the context of potential risk to the patient and society. Because appropriate use of opioids has grown murky, nonpharmacotherapeutic management and nonopioid pharmacotherapy are preferred for chronic pain.

The therapeutic window— between safe dosages and those that could lead to respiratory depression or overdose— is narrow for older patients.

Plan ahead. Establish goals of treatment that focus on both pain and function when starting opioid therapy. This will facilitate decision-making when it comes time to continue—or discontinue—opioids down the road. Opioids should be prescribed at the lowest effective dosage; ongoing reassessment of benefit should be made, and particular caution should be exercised, if the daily opioid dosage reaches ≥ 50 morphine milligram equivalents (MME) and especially as the dosage approaches ≥ 90 MME/d. Prescribers should ensure that patients are educated about known risks and the limited evidence of benefit of opioid therapy.

An age-related concern. Special consideration is warranted in older patients, who might have reduced renal function even in the absence of renal disease; this can lead to a reduction in clearance of pain medication. Because of that increased risk of drug accumulation, the therapeutic window—between safe dosages and those that could lead to respiratory depression or overdose—is narrow for these patients.¹¹

Continue to: Use in pregnancy

Use in pregnancy. Treatment with opioid medication in pregnancy warrants special consideration. In general, it’s wise to avoid opioid use in pregnant women because data on long- and short-term safety are limited.¹² In 2015, the US Food and Drug Administration issued a safety announcement that further investigation is needed to determine whether the fetus is at increased risk of a neural tube defect related to opioid exposure during the first trimester.¹³ In women with an OUD, both methadone and buprenorphine are safe to use. Buprenorphine is associated with slightly better outcomes for neonatal abstinence syndrome and length of hospital stay.¹⁴

Ongoing monitoring of risk. Periodically assessing risk factors for opioid-related harm during continuation of opioid treatment is important. Tools such as the Opioid Risk Tool (ORT) or the Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain-Revised, or SOAPP-R, can be used to evaluate the risk of misuse in adults who are prescribed opioids for chronic pain,¹⁵ although the evidence for utilizing these tools is inconclusive.¹¹

Offering naloxone should be considered when factors that increase the risk of opioid overdose are present, such as a history of substance use disorder, a daily opioid dosage > 50 MME, concurrent use of benzodiazepines, and medical comorbidities that increase the risk of overdose (eg, sleep apnea, pulmonary disease, heart failure).¹⁶ Prescribers should review prescription drug monitoring program data, when available, to assess treatment adherence and to obtain a collateral history that might suggest abuse or diversion. Urine drug testing can be a useful adjunct to ongoing therapy—again, to assess treatment adherence and look for evidence of other substance use disorders.

Watchfulness for misuse and OUD. Opioid misuse—the nontherapeutic use of opioids—includes taking opioids in amounts other than prescribed, for indications other than prescribed, and administering by alternative routes other than prescribed (eg, crushing and snorting, rather than ingesting). The presence of opioid misuse does not always signify OUD. However, The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th ed.,¹⁷ defines OUD as out-of-control use; devoting increasing mental and physical resources to obtaining, using, and recovering from substances; and continued use despite adverse consequences.

Behaviors that increase the risk of, and might signal, opioid misuse and OUD include¹⁸

• seeking early refills
• obtaining opioids from the emergency room
• using medications prescribed to others
• using opioids to treat symptoms other than pain, such as anxiety or insomnia
• “doctor-shopping.”

Continue to: Furthermore...

Furthermore, psychiatric comorbidities,¹⁹ a personal or family history of substance use disorder,²⁰ and a preadolescent history of sexual abuse²¹ are associated with a higher risk of a substance use disorder.

If OUD is identified, remain nonjudgmental and acknowledge that addiction is a chronic disease. Assumptions about a patient’s character or morality have no place in the appropriate management of OUD; remain mindful of your own implicit biases.

When is it appropriateto start an opioid taper?

The decision to taper opioids is difficult and can provoke anxiety for both prescriber and patient. Complicating matters is that there is insufficient evidence to evaluate opioid dosage-reduction interventions for patients with chronic noncancer pain.²²

Safety concerns. Even in patients who are taking opioids as prescribed and for whom no red flags have been raised, the long-term safety of high-dosage opioids remains unclear. There is no “safe” dosage of opioids; however, evidence is clear that the risk of death from overdose increases with dosage. Compared with patients taking a dosage anywhere from 1 to 20 MME/d, those taking 50 to 99 MME/d have a 3.7-fold increased risk of overdose; patients taking ≥ 100 MME/d had an 8.9-fold increased risk.²³ Patients for whom concomitant benzodiazepines are prescribed are also at higher risk of overdose and death. In studies of opioid overdose deaths, there was evidence of concurrent benzodiazepine use in 31% to 61% of cases.¹¹

Inadequate analgesia. Given the well-established risk of drug tolerance, the inability to achieve or maintain pain relief or functional improvement can still occur—even when the opioid dosage is escalated reasonably. It might be prudent in that situation to taper opioids while also considering alternative modalities, including ones that were deferred previously.

Continue to: Intolerable adverse effects

Intolerable adverse effects. Adverse effects are common. Constipation has a reported prevalence of 15% to 90% among patients on long-term opioid treatment.²⁴ Short-term, mild constipation is often manageable; long-term opioid use, however, can produce constipation refractory to bowel regimens and, in rare cases, lead to bowel obstruction, perforation, and even death. Other adverse effects include²⁵

• sedation and drowsiness
• impaired memory or concentration
• mood changes
• dry mouth
• abdominal pain and nausea
• sexual dysfunction.

When these effects limit the tolerability of treatment, tapering might be indicated.

How are opioids tapered?

There is no definitive evidence of an optimal rate of taper or frequency of follow-up. Most guidelines suggest tapering opioids at 10% of the dosage each week; patients who have been taking opioids for many years, however, might require a slower taper (eg, a dosage decrease of 5%-20% every 2-4 weeks).¹¹

Psychosocial support and maximizing nonopioid pain management techniques are critical to successful opioid tapering. When tapering is part of a comprehensive pain and rehabilitative plan, patients might find their symptoms alleviated.²⁶ Given the potential risks in patients taking both short- and long-acting opioids, tapering the long-acting opioid should be the initial priority.

Psychiatric comorbidities, a personal or family history of substance use disorder, and a preadolescent history of sexual abuse are associated with a higher risk of a substance use disorder.

A more rapid taper—eg, a 20% reduction each week or even abrupt discontinuation of opioids—might be necessary if diversion is suspected or if there is concern that continued use of the medication presents high risk. In such cases, consultation with an addiction medicine specialist can be helpful—to assess whether medication-assisted therapy for OUD would be appropriate and how to support patients who are having withdrawal symptoms.

Continue to: For all patients...

For all patients, frequent follow-up visits with their primary care clinician, as well as referrals to mental health, physical therapy, and pain or rehabilitation services, can promote a successful taper. It is advised that, before beginning a taper, a treatment plan should be written out with the patient so that expectations are shared by physician and patient for the goals of the taper, the speed of dosage decreases, and the frequency of follow-up after each dosage change. At each follow-up visit, education regarding self-management and individualized recommendations for psychosocial support, mental health services, and substance use disorder services should be updated.

Assessing risk when tapering chronic opioid therapy

The goals of tapering should be to (1) reduce adverse effects of treatment and (2) mitigate short- and long-term risks.

Three short-term risks

Unmasking OUD. Tapering prescribed opioids, or even just discussing tapering, can unmask OUD in some patients. Follow-up visits during the tapering schedule should include frequent screening for OUD. If OUD is diagnosed, we recommend beginning medication-assisted treatment or referring the patient to a substance use treatment center. There is strong evidence of the safety and efficacy of medication-assisted treatment, even with a coexisting chronic pain disorder.²⁷

Withdrawal syndrome. Opioid withdrawal syndrome is characterized by signs and symptoms of sympathetic stimulation, resulting from decreased sympathetic blockade by opioids (TABLE).²⁸ (See “Changes in the locus ceruleus lead to withdrawal.”²⁹) Symptoms start 2 to 3 half-lives after the last dose of opioid. Oxycodone, for example, has a half-life of 3 to 4 hours; withdrawal symptoms should therefore be anticipated in 6 to 12 hours. Because mixing opioids is commonplace, it can be difficult to predict exactly when withdrawal symptoms will begin. Patients are often most helpful in predicting the onset and severity of withdrawal symptoms.

Withdrawal can be measured using any of a number of validated tools, including

• the Subjective Opiate Withdrawal Scale, or SOWS³⁰ (FIGURE 1), which utilizes a patient self-report
• the Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale, or COWS³¹ (FIGURE 2), which relies on assessment made by the physician.

Continue to: Although withdrawal...

Although withdrawal is generally not considered life-threatening in patients without significant comorbidities, do not underestimate the severity of withdrawal symptoms. Often, the desire to avoid these intense symptoms drives patients with OUD to continue to overuse.

Increased pain. Patients might fear that pain will become worse if opioids are tapered. Although it is important to acknowledge this fear, studies of patients undergoing a long-term opioid taper report improvements in function without loss of adequate pain control; some even report that pain control improves.³²

Three long-term risks

Relapse. The most dangerous risk of tapering opioids is use of illicit opioids, a danger made worse by the increasing presence of highly lethal synthetic fentanyl analogues in the community. Risk factors for relapse following a full taper include the presence of depressive symptoms at initiation of tapering and higher pain scores at initiation and conclusion of the taper.³³ Having low pain at the end of an opioid taper, on the other hand, is predictive of long-term abstinence from opioids.³²

Declining function. As is the case while prescribing opioids for pain, maintenance of function remains a priority when tapering opioids. Function can be difficult to assess, given the many variables that can influence an individual’s function. Psychosocial factors, such as coping strategies and mood, strongly influence function; so do psychiatric morbidities, which are more prevalent in patients with chronic pain and disability, compared with the general population.³⁴

Medicolegal matters. Although difficult to characterize, medicolegal risk is an inevitable consideration when tapering opioids:

• In a study of closed malpractice claims involving all medical specialties, narcotic pain medications were the most common drug class involved, representing 1% of claims.³⁵
• In a study of closed malpractice claims involving pain medicine specialists, 3% were related to medication management. Most claims arose following death from opioid overdose.³⁶

Continue to: What else is needed in this area of practice?

Increasingly, family physicians face the inherent tension of wanting to provide patient-centered, compassionate care for patients in pain while being mindful of opioid prescription stewardship. To support their work and help allay this tension, clinical research on this topic in the future should focus on

• new options for nonopioid pharmacotherapy for pain
• best practices for using opioids in noncancer chronic pain.

In addition, health care systems can help—by providing insurance coverage of nonpharmacotherapeutic options for treating pain.

CORRESPONDENCE
Michael Mendoza, MD, MPH, MS, FAAFP, 111 Westfall Road, Room 952, Rochester, NY 14620; MichaelMendoza@ monroecounty.gov

The opioid crisis has brought added scrutiny to opioid prescribing, particularly to health care providers, whom many blame for the genesis of the opioid overdose epidemic. Family physicians are acutely aware of these complexities: By sheer volume, family physicians prescribe more opioid analgesics than any other subspecialist.¹

Overwhelmed by opioid prescriptions

Because of a complexity of factors (notably, the influence of the US pharmaceutical industry), the quantity of opioid prescriptions has risen substantially—enough so that, in 2010, opioids were prescribed in great enough quantity to medicate every American around the clock for a month.² Among people who began abusing opioids in the 2000s, 75% reported that their first opioid was a prescription drug; this is a shift from prior decades, when heroin was the gateway to opioid addiction.³ As the reality of the size of the opioid problem sunk in, many were hopeful that the epidemic would reverse itself as quickly as it began if the medical community would simply prescribe fewer opioids.

©Stuart Bradford

Since 2010, the opioid overdose fatality rate has risen dramatically, even though prescription opioid overdose mortality has leveled off, or even declined. ² One explanation for this paradox? As availability of prescription opioids declined, people suffering from an underlying opioid use disorder (OUD) turned instead first to heroin, then later to potent fentanyl analogues to fuel their addiction. In most communities, the prevalence of fentanyl analogues—alone or more commonly mixed with other opioids—has driven the staggering rise in opioid-related fatalities in recent years.

No question: Prescription opioids played a critical role in the origins of this epidemic, but just withdrawing prescriptions will not result in marked reduction in the epidemic. This quandary is no more apparent than in primary care, where the considerable risk of continuing opioids—especially at high dosages—must be weighed against the potential risks of discontinuation. Adding to this dilemma are lack of access to treatment for patients with an OUD and the continued stigma and misunderstanding of substance use disorders.

In this article, we describe the challenges of long-term opioid use and review necessary protocols and precautions for maintaining or tapering an opioid regimen in patients who suffer chronic pain.

Managing chronic pain is fraught with complexity

Chronic pain is both real and a disease in its own right. Although definitions of chronic pain vary, pain that lasts > 3 months or past the duration of normal tissue healing is typically considered chronic.⁴ Approximations of prevalence vary, but in 1 study that examined a representative sample, it was estimated that 14.6% of US adults experience chronic pain.⁵

Patients who report symptoms or a history of chronic pain can elicit negative reactions from physicians—stemming from our biases, which can inadvertently provoke emotions on our part.⁶ Unflattering portrayals of patients in the media can further fuel unwarranted biases and prejudices.⁷

Continue to: Preventing, assessing, and treating...

Preventing, assessing, and treating chronic pain can be difficult, at the level of both the individual physician and the larger system of care, even without adding in complications of the opioid epidemic. For racial and ethnic minority groups, women, older people, and people with cognitive impairment or cancer, pain can be underrecognized and go inadequately treated.

Among people who began abusing opioids in the 2000s, 75% said that their first opioid was a prescription drug; in prior decades, heroin was the gateway to opioid addiction.

Chronic pain itself has clinical, psychological, and social consequences and is associated with limitations in activity, work productivity, quality of life, and stigma.⁸ Treatment of chronic pain—with opioids or other modalities—remains an important component of patient-centered primary care. Interestingly, however, many patients struggling through chronic pain report that efforts to curb the opioid epidemic have inadvertently led to lower-quality pain management and, therefore, understandable concern among patients whose chronic pain is well managed with opioid pain medications.^9,10

When is it appropriate to continue opioids for chronic pain?

Apart from the treatment of active cancer, palliative care, and end-of-life care, the appropriate use of opioids for chronic and acute pain has become clouded in recent years. To assist with this problem, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued guidelines in 2016 for primary care physicians who are faced with this clinical dilemma.¹¹ The guidelines (1) address circumstances in which it is safe to consider opioid prescribing and (2) provide ongoing reassessment of indications for chronic opioid prescribing within the context of potential risk to the patient and society. Because appropriate use of opioids has grown murky, nonpharmacotherapeutic management and nonopioid pharmacotherapy are preferred for chronic pain.

The therapeutic window— between safe dosages and those that could lead to respiratory depression or overdose— is narrow for older patients.

Plan ahead. Establish goals of treatment that focus on both pain and function when starting opioid therapy. This will facilitate decision-making when it comes time to continue—or discontinue—opioids down the road. Opioids should be prescribed at the lowest effective dosage; ongoing reassessment of benefit should be made, and particular caution should be exercised, if the daily opioid dosage reaches ≥ 50 morphine milligram equivalents (MME) and especially as the dosage approaches ≥ 90 MME/d. Prescribers should ensure that patients are educated about known risks and the limited evidence of benefit of opioid therapy.

An age-related concern. Special consideration is warranted in older patients, who might have reduced renal function even in the absence of renal disease; this can lead to a reduction in clearance of pain medication. Because of that increased risk of drug accumulation, the therapeutic window—between safe dosages and those that could lead to respiratory depression or overdose—is narrow for these patients.¹¹

Continue to: Use in pregnancy

Use in pregnancy. Treatment with opioid medication in pregnancy warrants special consideration. In general, it’s wise to avoid opioid use in pregnant women because data on long- and short-term safety are limited.¹² In 2015, the US Food and Drug Administration issued a safety announcement that further investigation is needed to determine whether the fetus is at increased risk of a neural tube defect related to opioid exposure during the first trimester.¹³ In women with an OUD, both methadone and buprenorphine are safe to use. Buprenorphine is associated with slightly better outcomes for neonatal abstinence syndrome and length of hospital stay.¹⁴

Ongoing monitoring of risk. Periodically assessing risk factors for opioid-related harm during continuation of opioid treatment is important. Tools such as the Opioid Risk Tool (ORT) or the Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain-Revised, or SOAPP-R, can be used to evaluate the risk of misuse in adults who are prescribed opioids for chronic pain,¹⁵ although the evidence for utilizing these tools is inconclusive.¹¹

Offering naloxone should be considered when factors that increase the risk of opioid overdose are present, such as a history of substance use disorder, a daily opioid dosage > 50 MME, concurrent use of benzodiazepines, and medical comorbidities that increase the risk of overdose (eg, sleep apnea, pulmonary disease, heart failure).¹⁶ Prescribers should review prescription drug monitoring program data, when available, to assess treatment adherence and to obtain a collateral history that might suggest abuse or diversion. Urine drug testing can be a useful adjunct to ongoing therapy—again, to assess treatment adherence and look for evidence of other substance use disorders.

Watchfulness for misuse and OUD. Opioid misuse—the nontherapeutic use of opioids—includes taking opioids in amounts other than prescribed, for indications other than prescribed, and administering by alternative routes other than prescribed (eg, crushing and snorting, rather than ingesting). The presence of opioid misuse does not always signify OUD. However, The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th ed.,¹⁷ defines OUD as out-of-control use; devoting increasing mental and physical resources to obtaining, using, and recovering from substances; and continued use despite adverse consequences.

Behaviors that increase the risk of, and might signal, opioid misuse and OUD include¹⁸

• seeking early refills
• obtaining opioids from the emergency room
• using medications prescribed to others
• using opioids to treat symptoms other than pain, such as anxiety or insomnia
• “doctor-shopping.”

Continue to: Furthermore...

Furthermore, psychiatric comorbidities,¹⁹ a personal or family history of substance use disorder,²⁰ and a preadolescent history of sexual abuse²¹ are associated with a higher risk of a substance use disorder.

If OUD is identified, remain nonjudgmental and acknowledge that addiction is a chronic disease. Assumptions about a patient’s character or morality have no place in the appropriate management of OUD; remain mindful of your own implicit biases.

When is it appropriateto start an opioid taper?

The decision to taper opioids is difficult and can provoke anxiety for both prescriber and patient. Complicating matters is that there is insufficient evidence to evaluate opioid dosage-reduction interventions for patients with chronic noncancer pain.²²

Safety concerns. Even in patients who are taking opioids as prescribed and for whom no red flags have been raised, the long-term safety of high-dosage opioids remains unclear. There is no “safe” dosage of opioids; however, evidence is clear that the risk of death from overdose increases with dosage. Compared with patients taking a dosage anywhere from 1 to 20 MME/d, those taking 50 to 99 MME/d have a 3.7-fold increased risk of overdose; patients taking ≥ 100 MME/d had an 8.9-fold increased risk.²³ Patients for whom concomitant benzodiazepines are prescribed are also at higher risk of overdose and death. In studies of opioid overdose deaths, there was evidence of concurrent benzodiazepine use in 31% to 61% of cases.¹¹

Inadequate analgesia. Given the well-established risk of drug tolerance, the inability to achieve or maintain pain relief or functional improvement can still occur—even when the opioid dosage is escalated reasonably. It might be prudent in that situation to taper opioids while also considering alternative modalities, including ones that were deferred previously.

Continue to: Intolerable adverse effects

Intolerable adverse effects. Adverse effects are common. Constipation has a reported prevalence of 15% to 90% among patients on long-term opioid treatment.²⁴ Short-term, mild constipation is often manageable; long-term opioid use, however, can produce constipation refractory to bowel regimens and, in rare cases, lead to bowel obstruction, perforation, and even death. Other adverse effects include²⁵

• sedation and drowsiness
• impaired memory or concentration
• mood changes
• dry mouth
• abdominal pain and nausea
• sexual dysfunction.

When these effects limit the tolerability of treatment, tapering might be indicated.

How are opioids tapered?

There is no definitive evidence of an optimal rate of taper or frequency of follow-up. Most guidelines suggest tapering opioids at 10% of the dosage each week; patients who have been taking opioids for many years, however, might require a slower taper (eg, a dosage decrease of 5%-20% every 2-4 weeks).¹¹

Psychosocial support and maximizing nonopioid pain management techniques are critical to successful opioid tapering. When tapering is part of a comprehensive pain and rehabilitative plan, patients might find their symptoms alleviated.²⁶ Given the potential risks in patients taking both short- and long-acting opioids, tapering the long-acting opioid should be the initial priority.

Psychiatric comorbidities, a personal or family history of substance use disorder, and a preadolescent history of sexual abuse are associated with a higher risk of a substance use disorder.

A more rapid taper—eg, a 20% reduction each week or even abrupt discontinuation of opioids—might be necessary if diversion is suspected or if there is concern that continued use of the medication presents high risk. In such cases, consultation with an addiction medicine specialist can be helpful—to assess whether medication-assisted therapy for OUD would be appropriate and how to support patients who are having withdrawal symptoms.

Continue to: For all patients...

For all patients, frequent follow-up visits with their primary care clinician, as well as referrals to mental health, physical therapy, and pain or rehabilitation services, can promote a successful taper. It is advised that, before beginning a taper, a treatment plan should be written out with the patient so that expectations are shared by physician and patient for the goals of the taper, the speed of dosage decreases, and the frequency of follow-up after each dosage change. At each follow-up visit, education regarding self-management and individualized recommendations for psychosocial support, mental health services, and substance use disorder services should be updated.

Assessing risk when tapering chronic opioid therapy

The goals of tapering should be to (1) reduce adverse effects of treatment and (2) mitigate short- and long-term risks.

Three short-term risks

Unmasking OUD. Tapering prescribed opioids, or even just discussing tapering, can unmask OUD in some patients. Follow-up visits during the tapering schedule should include frequent screening for OUD. If OUD is diagnosed, we recommend beginning medication-assisted treatment or referring the patient to a substance use treatment center. There is strong evidence of the safety and efficacy of medication-assisted treatment, even with a coexisting chronic pain disorder.²⁷

Withdrawal syndrome. Opioid withdrawal syndrome is characterized by signs and symptoms of sympathetic stimulation, resulting from decreased sympathetic blockade by opioids (TABLE).²⁸ (See “Changes in the locus ceruleus lead to withdrawal.”²⁹) Symptoms start 2 to 3 half-lives after the last dose of opioid. Oxycodone, for example, has a half-life of 3 to 4 hours; withdrawal symptoms should therefore be anticipated in 6 to 12 hours. Because mixing opioids is commonplace, it can be difficult to predict exactly when withdrawal symptoms will begin. Patients are often most helpful in predicting the onset and severity of withdrawal symptoms.

Withdrawal can be measured using any of a number of validated tools, including

• the Subjective Opiate Withdrawal Scale, or SOWS³⁰ (FIGURE 1), which utilizes a patient self-report
• the Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale, or COWS³¹ (FIGURE 2), which relies on assessment made by the physician.

Continue to: Although withdrawal...

Although withdrawal is generally not considered life-threatening in patients without significant comorbidities, do not underestimate the severity of withdrawal symptoms. Often, the desire to avoid these intense symptoms drives patients with OUD to continue to overuse.

Increased pain. Patients might fear that pain will become worse if opioids are tapered. Although it is important to acknowledge this fear, studies of patients undergoing a long-term opioid taper report improvements in function without loss of adequate pain control; some even report that pain control improves.³²

Three long-term risks

Relapse. The most dangerous risk of tapering opioids is use of illicit opioids, a danger made worse by the increasing presence of highly lethal synthetic fentanyl analogues in the community. Risk factors for relapse following a full taper include the presence of depressive symptoms at initiation of tapering and higher pain scores at initiation and conclusion of the taper.³³ Having low pain at the end of an opioid taper, on the other hand, is predictive of long-term abstinence from opioids.³²

Declining function. As is the case while prescribing opioids for pain, maintenance of function remains a priority when tapering opioids. Function can be difficult to assess, given the many variables that can influence an individual’s function. Psychosocial factors, such as coping strategies and mood, strongly influence function; so do psychiatric morbidities, which are more prevalent in patients with chronic pain and disability, compared with the general population.³⁴

Medicolegal matters. Although difficult to characterize, medicolegal risk is an inevitable consideration when tapering opioids:

• In a study of closed malpractice claims involving all medical specialties, narcotic pain medications were the most common drug class involved, representing 1% of claims.³⁵
• In a study of closed malpractice claims involving pain medicine specialists, 3% were related to medication management. Most claims arose following death from opioid overdose.³⁶

Continue to: What else is needed in this area of practice?

Increasingly, family physicians face the inherent tension of wanting to provide patient-centered, compassionate care for patients in pain while being mindful of opioid prescription stewardship. To support their work and help allay this tension, clinical research on this topic in the future should focus on

• new options for nonopioid pharmacotherapy for pain
• best practices for using opioids in noncancer chronic pain.

In addition, health care systems can help—by providing insurance coverage of nonpharmacotherapeutic options for treating pain.

CORRESPONDENCE
Michael Mendoza, MD, MPH, MS, FAAFP, 111 Westfall Road, Room 952, Rochester, NY 14620; MichaelMendoza@ monroecounty.gov

The opioid crisis has brought added scrutiny to opioid prescribing, particularly to health care providers, whom many blame for the genesis of the opioid overdose epidemic. Family physicians are acutely aware of these complexities: By sheer volume, family physicians prescribe more opioid analgesics than any other subspecialist.¹

Overwhelmed by opioid prescriptions

Because of a complexity of factors (notably, the influence of the US pharmaceutical industry), the quantity of opioid prescriptions has risen substantially—enough so that, in 2010, opioids were prescribed in great enough quantity to medicate every American around the clock for a month.² Among people who began abusing opioids in the 2000s, 75% reported that their first opioid was a prescription drug; this is a shift from prior decades, when heroin was the gateway to opioid addiction.³ As the reality of the size of the opioid problem sunk in, many were hopeful that the epidemic would reverse itself as quickly as it began if the medical community would simply prescribe fewer opioids.

©Stuart Bradford

Since 2010, the opioid overdose fatality rate has risen dramatically, even though prescription opioid overdose mortality has leveled off, or even declined. ² One explanation for this paradox? As availability of prescription opioids declined, people suffering from an underlying opioid use disorder (OUD) turned instead first to heroin, then later to potent fentanyl analogues to fuel their addiction. In most communities, the prevalence of fentanyl analogues—alone or more commonly mixed with other opioids—has driven the staggering rise in opioid-related fatalities in recent years.

No question: Prescription opioids played a critical role in the origins of this epidemic, but just withdrawing prescriptions will not result in marked reduction in the epidemic. This quandary is no more apparent than in primary care, where the considerable risk of continuing opioids—especially at high dosages—must be weighed against the potential risks of discontinuation. Adding to this dilemma are lack of access to treatment for patients with an OUD and the continued stigma and misunderstanding of substance use disorders.

In this article, we describe the challenges of long-term opioid use and review necessary protocols and precautions for maintaining or tapering an opioid regimen in patients who suffer chronic pain.

Managing chronic pain is fraught with complexity

Chronic pain is both real and a disease in its own right. Although definitions of chronic pain vary, pain that lasts > 3 months or past the duration of normal tissue healing is typically considered chronic.⁴ Approximations of prevalence vary, but in 1 study that examined a representative sample, it was estimated that 14.6% of US adults experience chronic pain.⁵

Patients who report symptoms or a history of chronic pain can elicit negative reactions from physicians—stemming from our biases, which can inadvertently provoke emotions on our part.⁶ Unflattering portrayals of patients in the media can further fuel unwarranted biases and prejudices.⁷

Continue to: Preventing, assessing, and treating...

Preventing, assessing, and treating chronic pain can be difficult, at the level of both the individual physician and the larger system of care, even without adding in complications of the opioid epidemic. For racial and ethnic minority groups, women, older people, and people with cognitive impairment or cancer, pain can be underrecognized and go inadequately treated.

Among people who began abusing opioids in the 2000s, 75% said that their first opioid was a prescription drug; in prior decades, heroin was the gateway to opioid addiction.

Chronic pain itself has clinical, psychological, and social consequences and is associated with limitations in activity, work productivity, quality of life, and stigma.⁸ Treatment of chronic pain—with opioids or other modalities—remains an important component of patient-centered primary care. Interestingly, however, many patients struggling through chronic pain report that efforts to curb the opioid epidemic have inadvertently led to lower-quality pain management and, therefore, understandable concern among patients whose chronic pain is well managed with opioid pain medications.^9,10

When is it appropriate to continue opioids for chronic pain?

Apart from the treatment of active cancer, palliative care, and end-of-life care, the appropriate use of opioids for chronic and acute pain has become clouded in recent years. To assist with this problem, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued guidelines in 2016 for primary care physicians who are faced with this clinical dilemma.¹¹ The guidelines (1) address circumstances in which it is safe to consider opioid prescribing and (2) provide ongoing reassessment of indications for chronic opioid prescribing within the context of potential risk to the patient and society. Because appropriate use of opioids has grown murky, nonpharmacotherapeutic management and nonopioid pharmacotherapy are preferred for chronic pain.

The therapeutic window— between safe dosages and those that could lead to respiratory depression or overdose— is narrow for older patients.

Plan ahead. Establish goals of treatment that focus on both pain and function when starting opioid therapy. This will facilitate decision-making when it comes time to continue—or discontinue—opioids down the road. Opioids should be prescribed at the lowest effective dosage; ongoing reassessment of benefit should be made, and particular caution should be exercised, if the daily opioid dosage reaches ≥ 50 morphine milligram equivalents (MME) and especially as the dosage approaches ≥ 90 MME/d. Prescribers should ensure that patients are educated about known risks and the limited evidence of benefit of opioid therapy.

An age-related concern. Special consideration is warranted in older patients, who might have reduced renal function even in the absence of renal disease; this can lead to a reduction in clearance of pain medication. Because of that increased risk of drug accumulation, the therapeutic window—between safe dosages and those that could lead to respiratory depression or overdose—is narrow for these patients.¹¹

Continue to: Use in pregnancy

Use in pregnancy. Treatment with opioid medication in pregnancy warrants special consideration. In general, it’s wise to avoid opioid use in pregnant women because data on long- and short-term safety are limited.¹² In 2015, the US Food and Drug Administration issued a safety announcement that further investigation is needed to determine whether the fetus is at increased risk of a neural tube defect related to opioid exposure during the first trimester.¹³ In women with an OUD, both methadone and buprenorphine are safe to use. Buprenorphine is associated with slightly better outcomes for neonatal abstinence syndrome and length of hospital stay.¹⁴

Ongoing monitoring of risk. Periodically assessing risk factors for opioid-related harm during continuation of opioid treatment is important. Tools such as the Opioid Risk Tool (ORT) or the Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain-Revised, or SOAPP-R, can be used to evaluate the risk of misuse in adults who are prescribed opioids for chronic pain,¹⁵ although the evidence for utilizing these tools is inconclusive.¹¹

Offering naloxone should be considered when factors that increase the risk of opioid overdose are present, such as a history of substance use disorder, a daily opioid dosage > 50 MME, concurrent use of benzodiazepines, and medical comorbidities that increase the risk of overdose (eg, sleep apnea, pulmonary disease, heart failure).¹⁶ Prescribers should review prescription drug monitoring program data, when available, to assess treatment adherence and to obtain a collateral history that might suggest abuse or diversion. Urine drug testing can be a useful adjunct to ongoing therapy—again, to assess treatment adherence and look for evidence of other substance use disorders.

Watchfulness for misuse and OUD. Opioid misuse—the nontherapeutic use of opioids—includes taking opioids in amounts other than prescribed, for indications other than prescribed, and administering by alternative routes other than prescribed (eg, crushing and snorting, rather than ingesting). The presence of opioid misuse does not always signify OUD. However, The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th ed.,¹⁷ defines OUD as out-of-control use; devoting increasing mental and physical resources to obtaining, using, and recovering from substances; and continued use despite adverse consequences.

Behaviors that increase the risk of, and might signal, opioid misuse and OUD include¹⁸

• seeking early refills
• obtaining opioids from the emergency room
• using medications prescribed to others
• using opioids to treat symptoms other than pain, such as anxiety or insomnia
• “doctor-shopping.”

Continue to: Furthermore...

Furthermore, psychiatric comorbidities,¹⁹ a personal or family history of substance use disorder,²⁰ and a preadolescent history of sexual abuse²¹ are associated with a higher risk of a substance use disorder.

If OUD is identified, remain nonjudgmental and acknowledge that addiction is a chronic disease. Assumptions about a patient’s character or morality have no place in the appropriate management of OUD; remain mindful of your own implicit biases.

When is it appropriateto start an opioid taper?

The decision to taper opioids is difficult and can provoke anxiety for both prescriber and patient. Complicating matters is that there is insufficient evidence to evaluate opioid dosage-reduction interventions for patients with chronic noncancer pain.²²

Safety concerns. Even in patients who are taking opioids as prescribed and for whom no red flags have been raised, the long-term safety of high-dosage opioids remains unclear. There is no “safe” dosage of opioids; however, evidence is clear that the risk of death from overdose increases with dosage. Compared with patients taking a dosage anywhere from 1 to 20 MME/d, those taking 50 to 99 MME/d have a 3.7-fold increased risk of overdose; patients taking ≥ 100 MME/d had an 8.9-fold increased risk.²³ Patients for whom concomitant benzodiazepines are prescribed are also at higher risk of overdose and death. In studies of opioid overdose deaths, there was evidence of concurrent benzodiazepine use in 31% to 61% of cases.¹¹

Inadequate analgesia. Given the well-established risk of drug tolerance, the inability to achieve or maintain pain relief or functional improvement can still occur—even when the opioid dosage is escalated reasonably. It might be prudent in that situation to taper opioids while also considering alternative modalities, including ones that were deferred previously.

Continue to: Intolerable adverse effects

Intolerable adverse effects. Adverse effects are common. Constipation has a reported prevalence of 15% to 90% among patients on long-term opioid treatment.²⁴ Short-term, mild constipation is often manageable; long-term opioid use, however, can produce constipation refractory to bowel regimens and, in rare cases, lead to bowel obstruction, perforation, and even death. Other adverse effects include²⁵

• sedation and drowsiness
• impaired memory or concentration
• mood changes
• dry mouth
• abdominal pain and nausea
• sexual dysfunction.

When these effects limit the tolerability of treatment, tapering might be indicated.

How are opioids tapered?

There is no definitive evidence of an optimal rate of taper or frequency of follow-up. Most guidelines suggest tapering opioids at 10% of the dosage each week; patients who have been taking opioids for many years, however, might require a slower taper (eg, a dosage decrease of 5%-20% every 2-4 weeks).¹¹

Psychosocial support and maximizing nonopioid pain management techniques are critical to successful opioid tapering. When tapering is part of a comprehensive pain and rehabilitative plan, patients might find their symptoms alleviated.²⁶ Given the potential risks in patients taking both short- and long-acting opioids, tapering the long-acting opioid should be the initial priority.

Psychiatric comorbidities, a personal or family history of substance use disorder, and a preadolescent history of sexual abuse are associated with a higher risk of a substance use disorder.

A more rapid taper—eg, a 20% reduction each week or even abrupt discontinuation of opioids—might be necessary if diversion is suspected or if there is concern that continued use of the medication presents high risk. In such cases, consultation with an addiction medicine specialist can be helpful—to assess whether medication-assisted therapy for OUD would be appropriate and how to support patients who are having withdrawal symptoms.

Continue to: For all patients...

For all patients, frequent follow-up visits with their primary care clinician, as well as referrals to mental health, physical therapy, and pain or rehabilitation services, can promote a successful taper. It is advised that, before beginning a taper, a treatment plan should be written out with the patient so that expectations are shared by physician and patient for the goals of the taper, the speed of dosage decreases, and the frequency of follow-up after each dosage change. At each follow-up visit, education regarding self-management and individualized recommendations for psychosocial support, mental health services, and substance use disorder services should be updated.

Assessing risk when tapering chronic opioid therapy

The goals of tapering should be to (1) reduce adverse effects of treatment and (2) mitigate short- and long-term risks.

Three short-term risks

Unmasking OUD. Tapering prescribed opioids, or even just discussing tapering, can unmask OUD in some patients. Follow-up visits during the tapering schedule should include frequent screening for OUD. If OUD is diagnosed, we recommend beginning medication-assisted treatment or referring the patient to a substance use treatment center. There is strong evidence of the safety and efficacy of medication-assisted treatment, even with a coexisting chronic pain disorder.²⁷

Withdrawal syndrome. Opioid withdrawal syndrome is characterized by signs and symptoms of sympathetic stimulation, resulting from decreased sympathetic blockade by opioids (TABLE).²⁸ (See “Changes in the locus ceruleus lead to withdrawal.”²⁹) Symptoms start 2 to 3 half-lives after the last dose of opioid. Oxycodone, for example, has a half-life of 3 to 4 hours; withdrawal symptoms should therefore be anticipated in 6 to 12 hours. Because mixing opioids is commonplace, it can be difficult to predict exactly when withdrawal symptoms will begin. Patients are often most helpful in predicting the onset and severity of withdrawal symptoms.

Withdrawal can be measured using any of a number of validated tools, including

• the Subjective Opiate Withdrawal Scale, or SOWS³⁰ (FIGURE 1), which utilizes a patient self-report
• the Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale, or COWS³¹ (FIGURE 2), which relies on assessment made by the physician.

Continue to: Although withdrawal...

Although withdrawal is generally not considered life-threatening in patients without significant comorbidities, do not underestimate the severity of withdrawal symptoms. Often, the desire to avoid these intense symptoms drives patients with OUD to continue to overuse.

Increased pain. Patients might fear that pain will become worse if opioids are tapered. Although it is important to acknowledge this fear, studies of patients undergoing a long-term opioid taper report improvements in function without loss of adequate pain control; some even report that pain control improves.³²

Three long-term risks

Relapse. The most dangerous risk of tapering opioids is use of illicit opioids, a danger made worse by the increasing presence of highly lethal synthetic fentanyl analogues in the community. Risk factors for relapse following a full taper include the presence of depressive symptoms at initiation of tapering and higher pain scores at initiation and conclusion of the taper.³³ Having low pain at the end of an opioid taper, on the other hand, is predictive of long-term abstinence from opioids.³²

Declining function. As is the case while prescribing opioids for pain, maintenance of function remains a priority when tapering opioids. Function can be difficult to assess, given the many variables that can influence an individual’s function. Psychosocial factors, such as coping strategies and mood, strongly influence function; so do psychiatric morbidities, which are more prevalent in patients with chronic pain and disability, compared with the general population.³⁴

Medicolegal matters. Although difficult to characterize, medicolegal risk is an inevitable consideration when tapering opioids:

• In a study of closed malpractice claims involving all medical specialties, narcotic pain medications were the most common drug class involved, representing 1% of claims.³⁵
• In a study of closed malpractice claims involving pain medicine specialists, 3% were related to medication management. Most claims arose following death from opioid overdose.³⁶

Continue to: What else is needed in this area of practice?

Increasingly, family physicians face the inherent tension of wanting to provide patient-centered, compassionate care for patients in pain while being mindful of opioid prescription stewardship. To support their work and help allay this tension, clinical research on this topic in the future should focus on

• new options for nonopioid pharmacotherapy for pain
• best practices for using opioids in noncancer chronic pain.

In addition, health care systems can help—by providing insurance coverage of nonpharmacotherapeutic options for treating pain.

CORRESPONDENCE
Michael Mendoza, MD, MPH, MS, FAAFP, 111 Westfall Road, Room 952, Rochester, NY 14620; MichaelMendoza@ monroecounty.gov

Philadelphia – The more exposure that a person without migraine has to people with the disorder, the more likely he or she is to have potentially stigmatizing attitudes toward migraine, according to an analysis presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

“We need to understand why this is true,” said Robert Shapiro, MD, PhD, professor of neurological sciences at the University of Vermont in Burlington. The finding also raises questions about which measures could successfully mitigate these stigmatizing attitudes.
 

An examination of data from OVERCOME

Stigma is a social process by which people are excluded from society because of particular traits that they have. The process encompasses stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination. Data suggest that the level of stigma that people with migraine experience is similar to that experienced by people with epilepsy. Other data indicate that people without migraine are equally likely to hold stigmatizing attitudes toward people with migraine and people with epilepsy.

Dr. Shapiro and colleagues examined data from the Observational Survey of the Epidemiology, Treatment, and Care of Migraine (OVERCOME) study to better understand the attitudes that people without migraine have toward those who have the disorder. The data were gathered in fall 2018 through a web-based survey of a representative U.S. sample population. The researchers focused on a random sample of 2,000 people without migraine who responded to 11 questions about their attitudes toward patients with migraine. Responses described the frequency of holding attitudes and were scored on a 5-point Likert scale. The researchers categorized the responses “don’t know,” “never,” and “rarely” as “no” answers, and “sometimes,” “often,” and “very often” as “yes” answers. In addition, Dr. Shapiro and colleagues characterized each responder’s proximity to migraine according to the number of people with migraine that he or she knew (0, 1, or 2 or more) and the type of relationship (none, coworker, friend, or family member).
 

Sample was demographically representative

The demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of the study sample were similar to those of the most recent U.S. census data. The population’s mean age was 48, and 51% were female. Approximately 65% of respondents were non-Hispanic white, 14% were Hispanic, 11% were non-Hispanic black, 5% were Asian, and 5% were “other.” Approximately 45% of respondents reported that they had never known anyone with migraine. “Given the prevalence of migraine, it’s extraordinary that only 13% acknowledged that they had known two or more people with migraine,” said Dr. Shapiro. The finding raises questions about whether people with migraine have received adequate diagnoses and are aware of their disorder, he added. About 5% of the sample reported knowing only a coworker with migraine, and 37% reported knowing only one person with migraine.

About 31% of respondents thought that people with migraine use the disorder to avoid school or work commitments, and 33% thought that patients used migraine to avoid family or social commitments. Approximately 27% of respondents thought that people with migraine used it to get attention. About 45% of respondents thought that migraine should be treated easily, and 36% thought that people have migraine because of their own unhealthy behavior.

Individuals who knew people with migraine consistently held more negative attitudes toward those people, compared with those who did not know anyone with migraine. “These data are a little alarming,” said Dr. Shapiro. “They point to the difficulties that people with disabling migraine often encounter in having their experiences with the disease receive validation and understanding.”

Among the study’s strengths is the fact that it examined a large, population-based sample. The survey was conducted before many of the newer medications for migraine were available, and respondents were not likely to have been influenced by commercials that raised awareness of migraine, said Dr. Shapiro. The sample was not random, however, and the survey questions were based on the investigators’ interests, rather than on objective data. The generalizability of the results is in question, he added.

Dr. Shapiro consults for Eli Lilly, which sponsored the OVERCOME study.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Shapiro R et al. AHS 2019. Abstract OR15.

Philadelphia – The more exposure that a person without migraine has to people with the disorder, the more likely he or she is to have potentially stigmatizing attitudes toward migraine, according to an analysis presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

“We need to understand why this is true,” said Robert Shapiro, MD, PhD, professor of neurological sciences at the University of Vermont in Burlington. The finding also raises questions about which measures could successfully mitigate these stigmatizing attitudes.
 

An examination of data from OVERCOME

Stigma is a social process by which people are excluded from society because of particular traits that they have. The process encompasses stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination. Data suggest that the level of stigma that people with migraine experience is similar to that experienced by people with epilepsy. Other data indicate that people without migraine are equally likely to hold stigmatizing attitudes toward people with migraine and people with epilepsy.

Dr. Shapiro and colleagues examined data from the Observational Survey of the Epidemiology, Treatment, and Care of Migraine (OVERCOME) study to better understand the attitudes that people without migraine have toward those who have the disorder. The data were gathered in fall 2018 through a web-based survey of a representative U.S. sample population. The researchers focused on a random sample of 2,000 people without migraine who responded to 11 questions about their attitudes toward patients with migraine. Responses described the frequency of holding attitudes and were scored on a 5-point Likert scale. The researchers categorized the responses “don’t know,” “never,” and “rarely” as “no” answers, and “sometimes,” “often,” and “very often” as “yes” answers. In addition, Dr. Shapiro and colleagues characterized each responder’s proximity to migraine according to the number of people with migraine that he or she knew (0, 1, or 2 or more) and the type of relationship (none, coworker, friend, or family member).
 

Sample was demographically representative

The demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of the study sample were similar to those of the most recent U.S. census data. The population’s mean age was 48, and 51% were female. Approximately 65% of respondents were non-Hispanic white, 14% were Hispanic, 11% were non-Hispanic black, 5% were Asian, and 5% were “other.” Approximately 45% of respondents reported that they had never known anyone with migraine. “Given the prevalence of migraine, it’s extraordinary that only 13% acknowledged that they had known two or more people with migraine,” said Dr. Shapiro. The finding raises questions about whether people with migraine have received adequate diagnoses and are aware of their disorder, he added. About 5% of the sample reported knowing only a coworker with migraine, and 37% reported knowing only one person with migraine.

About 31% of respondents thought that people with migraine use the disorder to avoid school or work commitments, and 33% thought that patients used migraine to avoid family or social commitments. Approximately 27% of respondents thought that people with migraine used it to get attention. About 45% of respondents thought that migraine should be treated easily, and 36% thought that people have migraine because of their own unhealthy behavior.

Individuals who knew people with migraine consistently held more negative attitudes toward those people, compared with those who did not know anyone with migraine. “These data are a little alarming,” said Dr. Shapiro. “They point to the difficulties that people with disabling migraine often encounter in having their experiences with the disease receive validation and understanding.”

Among the study’s strengths is the fact that it examined a large, population-based sample. The survey was conducted before many of the newer medications for migraine were available, and respondents were not likely to have been influenced by commercials that raised awareness of migraine, said Dr. Shapiro. The sample was not random, however, and the survey questions were based on the investigators’ interests, rather than on objective data. The generalizability of the results is in question, he added.

Dr. Shapiro consults for Eli Lilly, which sponsored the OVERCOME study.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Shapiro R et al. AHS 2019. Abstract OR15.

Philadelphia – The more exposure that a person without migraine has to people with the disorder, the more likely he or she is to have potentially stigmatizing attitudes toward migraine, according to an analysis presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

“We need to understand why this is true,” said Robert Shapiro, MD, PhD, professor of neurological sciences at the University of Vermont in Burlington. The finding also raises questions about which measures could successfully mitigate these stigmatizing attitudes.
 

An examination of data from OVERCOME

Stigma is a social process by which people are excluded from society because of particular traits that they have. The process encompasses stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination. Data suggest that the level of stigma that people with migraine experience is similar to that experienced by people with epilepsy. Other data indicate that people without migraine are equally likely to hold stigmatizing attitudes toward people with migraine and people with epilepsy.

Dr. Shapiro and colleagues examined data from the Observational Survey of the Epidemiology, Treatment, and Care of Migraine (OVERCOME) study to better understand the attitudes that people without migraine have toward those who have the disorder. The data were gathered in fall 2018 through a web-based survey of a representative U.S. sample population. The researchers focused on a random sample of 2,000 people without migraine who responded to 11 questions about their attitudes toward patients with migraine. Responses described the frequency of holding attitudes and were scored on a 5-point Likert scale. The researchers categorized the responses “don’t know,” “never,” and “rarely” as “no” answers, and “sometimes,” “often,” and “very often” as “yes” answers. In addition, Dr. Shapiro and colleagues characterized each responder’s proximity to migraine according to the number of people with migraine that he or she knew (0, 1, or 2 or more) and the type of relationship (none, coworker, friend, or family member).
 

Sample was demographically representative

The demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of the study sample were similar to those of the most recent U.S. census data. The population’s mean age was 48, and 51% were female. Approximately 65% of respondents were non-Hispanic white, 14% were Hispanic, 11% were non-Hispanic black, 5% were Asian, and 5% were “other.” Approximately 45% of respondents reported that they had never known anyone with migraine. “Given the prevalence of migraine, it’s extraordinary that only 13% acknowledged that they had known two or more people with migraine,” said Dr. Shapiro. The finding raises questions about whether people with migraine have received adequate diagnoses and are aware of their disorder, he added. About 5% of the sample reported knowing only a coworker with migraine, and 37% reported knowing only one person with migraine.

About 31% of respondents thought that people with migraine use the disorder to avoid school or work commitments, and 33% thought that patients used migraine to avoid family or social commitments. Approximately 27% of respondents thought that people with migraine used it to get attention. About 45% of respondents thought that migraine should be treated easily, and 36% thought that people have migraine because of their own unhealthy behavior.

Individuals who knew people with migraine consistently held more negative attitudes toward those people, compared with those who did not know anyone with migraine. “These data are a little alarming,” said Dr. Shapiro. “They point to the difficulties that people with disabling migraine often encounter in having their experiences with the disease receive validation and understanding.”

Among the study’s strengths is the fact that it examined a large, population-based sample. The survey was conducted before many of the newer medications for migraine were available, and respondents were not likely to have been influenced by commercials that raised awareness of migraine, said Dr. Shapiro. The sample was not random, however, and the survey questions were based on the investigators’ interests, rather than on objective data. The generalizability of the results is in question, he added.

Dr. Shapiro consults for Eli Lilly, which sponsored the OVERCOME study.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Shapiro R et al. AHS 2019. Abstract OR15.

Mental health comorbidities increase the rates of opioid use and mortality among breast cancer survivors on endocrine therapy, based on a retrospective study of more than 10,000 patients in a Medicare-linked database.

Screen for mental health conditions in the early stages of cancer care and lean toward opioid alternatives for pain management, advised lead author Raj Desai, MS, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, and colleagues.

“The complex relationship among breast cancer, mental health problems, and the use of opioids is not well understood, despite the high prevalence of mental health comorbidities like depression and anxiety in breast cancer survivors, and the high rate of opioid use in those on AET [adjuvant endocrine therapy],” the investigators wrote in the Journal of Oncology Practice.

“Therefore, this study aimed to determine whether breast cancer survivors with varying levels of mental health comorbidities, such as depression and anxiety, are more likely to use opioids for AET-related pain,” they added.

The study involved 10,452 breast cancer survivors who first filled an AET prescription from 2006 to 2012 and had follow-up records available for at least 2 years. All patients had a diagnosis of incident, primary, hormone receptor–positive, stage I-III breast cancer. Data were drawn from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results–Medicare linked database. Records were evaluated for diagnoses of mental health conditions such as depression and anxiety, opioid use, and survival.

Analysis showed that the most common mental health conditions were depression and anxiety, diagnosed in 554 and 246 women, respectively. Patients with mental health comorbidities were compared with patients who did not have such problems, using both unmatched and matched cohorts. While unmatched comparison for opioid use was not statistically significant, matched comparison showed that survivors with mental health comorbidities were 33% more likely to use opioids than those without mental health comorbidities (95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.68). Similarly, greater adjusted probabilities of opioid use were reported in the mental health comorbidity cohort (72.5% vs. 66.9%; P = .01).

Concerning survival, unmatched comparison revealed a 44% higher risk of death among women with depression and a 32% increase associated with anxiety. Matched comparison showed an even higher increased risk of mortality among women with any mental health comorbidity (49%; P less than .05).

The investigators concluded that opioid use among breast cancer survivors with mental health comorbidities “remains a significant problem.”

“A need exists for collaborative care in the management of mental health comorbidities in women with breast cancer, which could improve symptoms, adherence to treatment, and recovery from these mental conditions,” the investigators wrote. “Mental health treatments also are recommended to be offered in primary care, which not only would be convenient for patients, but also would reduce the stigma associated with treatments for mental health comorbidities and improve the patient-provider relationship.”

The investigators reported financial relationships with Merck.

SOURCE: Desai R et al. J Oncol Pract. 2019 Jul 19. doi: 10.1200/JOP.18.00781.

Mental health comorbidities increase the rates of opioid use and mortality among breast cancer survivors on endocrine therapy, based on a retrospective study of more than 10,000 patients in a Medicare-linked database.

Screen for mental health conditions in the early stages of cancer care and lean toward opioid alternatives for pain management, advised lead author Raj Desai, MS, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, and colleagues.

“The complex relationship among breast cancer, mental health problems, and the use of opioids is not well understood, despite the high prevalence of mental health comorbidities like depression and anxiety in breast cancer survivors, and the high rate of opioid use in those on AET [adjuvant endocrine therapy],” the investigators wrote in the Journal of Oncology Practice.

“Therefore, this study aimed to determine whether breast cancer survivors with varying levels of mental health comorbidities, such as depression and anxiety, are more likely to use opioids for AET-related pain,” they added.

The study involved 10,452 breast cancer survivors who first filled an AET prescription from 2006 to 2012 and had follow-up records available for at least 2 years. All patients had a diagnosis of incident, primary, hormone receptor–positive, stage I-III breast cancer. Data were drawn from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results–Medicare linked database. Records were evaluated for diagnoses of mental health conditions such as depression and anxiety, opioid use, and survival.

Analysis showed that the most common mental health conditions were depression and anxiety, diagnosed in 554 and 246 women, respectively. Patients with mental health comorbidities were compared with patients who did not have such problems, using both unmatched and matched cohorts. While unmatched comparison for opioid use was not statistically significant, matched comparison showed that survivors with mental health comorbidities were 33% more likely to use opioids than those without mental health comorbidities (95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.68). Similarly, greater adjusted probabilities of opioid use were reported in the mental health comorbidity cohort (72.5% vs. 66.9%; P = .01).

Concerning survival, unmatched comparison revealed a 44% higher risk of death among women with depression and a 32% increase associated with anxiety. Matched comparison showed an even higher increased risk of mortality among women with any mental health comorbidity (49%; P less than .05).

The investigators concluded that opioid use among breast cancer survivors with mental health comorbidities “remains a significant problem.”

“A need exists for collaborative care in the management of mental health comorbidities in women with breast cancer, which could improve symptoms, adherence to treatment, and recovery from these mental conditions,” the investigators wrote. “Mental health treatments also are recommended to be offered in primary care, which not only would be convenient for patients, but also would reduce the stigma associated with treatments for mental health comorbidities and improve the patient-provider relationship.”

The investigators reported financial relationships with Merck.

SOURCE: Desai R et al. J Oncol Pract. 2019 Jul 19. doi: 10.1200/JOP.18.00781.

Mental health comorbidities increase the rates of opioid use and mortality among breast cancer survivors on endocrine therapy, based on a retrospective study of more than 10,000 patients in a Medicare-linked database.

Screen for mental health conditions in the early stages of cancer care and lean toward opioid alternatives for pain management, advised lead author Raj Desai, MS, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, and colleagues.

“The complex relationship among breast cancer, mental health problems, and the use of opioids is not well understood, despite the high prevalence of mental health comorbidities like depression and anxiety in breast cancer survivors, and the high rate of opioid use in those on AET [adjuvant endocrine therapy],” the investigators wrote in the Journal of Oncology Practice.

“Therefore, this study aimed to determine whether breast cancer survivors with varying levels of mental health comorbidities, such as depression and anxiety, are more likely to use opioids for AET-related pain,” they added.

The study involved 10,452 breast cancer survivors who first filled an AET prescription from 2006 to 2012 and had follow-up records available for at least 2 years. All patients had a diagnosis of incident, primary, hormone receptor–positive, stage I-III breast cancer. Data were drawn from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results–Medicare linked database. Records were evaluated for diagnoses of mental health conditions such as depression and anxiety, opioid use, and survival.

Analysis showed that the most common mental health conditions were depression and anxiety, diagnosed in 554 and 246 women, respectively. Patients with mental health comorbidities were compared with patients who did not have such problems, using both unmatched and matched cohorts. While unmatched comparison for opioid use was not statistically significant, matched comparison showed that survivors with mental health comorbidities were 33% more likely to use opioids than those without mental health comorbidities (95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.68). Similarly, greater adjusted probabilities of opioid use were reported in the mental health comorbidity cohort (72.5% vs. 66.9%; P = .01).

Concerning survival, unmatched comparison revealed a 44% higher risk of death among women with depression and a 32% increase associated with anxiety. Matched comparison showed an even higher increased risk of mortality among women with any mental health comorbidity (49%; P less than .05).

The investigators concluded that opioid use among breast cancer survivors with mental health comorbidities “remains a significant problem.”

“A need exists for collaborative care in the management of mental health comorbidities in women with breast cancer, which could improve symptoms, adherence to treatment, and recovery from these mental conditions,” the investigators wrote. “Mental health treatments also are recommended to be offered in primary care, which not only would be convenient for patients, but also would reduce the stigma associated with treatments for mental health comorbidities and improve the patient-provider relationship.”

The investigators reported financial relationships with Merck.

SOURCE: Desai R et al. J Oncol Pract. 2019 Jul 19. doi: 10.1200/JOP.18.00781.

PHILADELPHIA – People with moderately high levels of riboflavin consumption from food – two to three times the recommended dietary allowance – had a significantly lower prevalence of a recent severe or migraine headache in a study of more than 3,600 younger U.S. adults.

Adults 20-50 years old who consumed 2.07-2.87 mg riboflavin (vitamin B₂) in food a day based on a 24-hour recall questionnaire had an adjusted, statistically significant 27% reduced prevalence of a recent severe or migraine headache, compared with people in the lowest quartile of dietary riboflavin intake, 1.45 mg/day or less, Margaret Slavin, Ph.D., said at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society. Foods particularly high in riboflavin include eggs, milk, and meat.

Dietary riboflavin intakes greater than 2.87 mg/day were not linked to a difference in the prevalence of a recent history of severe or migraine headache, compared with lowest-quartile consumption. Additionally, riboflavin intake from supplements alone at any level of consumption also showed no statistically significant link with the prevalence of a recent, severe headache, said Dr. Slavin, a nutrition and food studies researcher at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va.

The “vast majority” of people in the study had a riboflavin intake that at least matched the U.S. recommended dietary allowance (RDA),1.3 mg/ day for men and 1.1 mg/day for women), “but it’s possible that people with migraine headaches need more riboflavin,” Dr. Slavin suggested. Professional societies in the United States (Neurology. 2012 Apr;78[17]: 1346-53) and Canada (Can J Neurol Sci. 2012 Mar;39[Suppl 2]S8-S28) have gone on record with some level of recommendation for a daily riboflavin supplement of 400 mg to prevent migraine headaches, she said.

A U.S. guideline that included riboflavin has been “retired” because of an issue unrelated to riboflavin, according to the Neurology website.

The new study ran data collected in the biennial National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), specifically the surveys from 2001-2002 and 2003-2004. The combined data included 5,528 adults 20-50 years old, and 3,634 with complete data and without an excluding condition such as pregnancy, diabetes, or menopause. Among the study participants 884 reported having “severe headaches or migraines,” during the 3 months preceding the survey and the remaining 2,750 people served as controls. People who reported recent severe headache or migraine overall had a significantly lower average amount of vitamin B2 in their diet than did the controls, but the two subgroups showed no significant differences in their levels of riboflavin intake from supplements, or from both diet and supplements combined.

The researchers calculated odds ratios for people having severe headaches or migraines relative to their riboflavin-intake quartile, and they adjusted the findings for age, sex, body mass index, and alcohol intake.

Further analysis that looked at total riboflavin intake, from both food and supplements, showed that the two middle quartiles for this metric, with a combined riboflavin intake of 1.6-3.8 mg/day, had a significantly reduced prevalence of recent severe or migraine headaches, compared with the lowest-intake quartile, with an odds ratio that roughly matched the dietary riboflavin analysis.

Dr. Slavin has received research funding from the Egg Nutrition Center, the Maryland Soybean Board, the McCormick Science Institute, and PepsiCo.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Slavin M. Headache. 2019 June;59[S1]:1-208, Abstract LBOR04.

PHILADELPHIA – People with moderately high levels of riboflavin consumption from food – two to three times the recommended dietary allowance – had a significantly lower prevalence of a recent severe or migraine headache in a study of more than 3,600 younger U.S. adults.

Adults 20-50 years old who consumed 2.07-2.87 mg riboflavin (vitamin B₂) in food a day based on a 24-hour recall questionnaire had an adjusted, statistically significant 27% reduced prevalence of a recent severe or migraine headache, compared with people in the lowest quartile of dietary riboflavin intake, 1.45 mg/day or less, Margaret Slavin, Ph.D., said at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society. Foods particularly high in riboflavin include eggs, milk, and meat.

Dietary riboflavin intakes greater than 2.87 mg/day were not linked to a difference in the prevalence of a recent history of severe or migraine headache, compared with lowest-quartile consumption. Additionally, riboflavin intake from supplements alone at any level of consumption also showed no statistically significant link with the prevalence of a recent, severe headache, said Dr. Slavin, a nutrition and food studies researcher at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va.

The “vast majority” of people in the study had a riboflavin intake that at least matched the U.S. recommended dietary allowance (RDA),1.3 mg/ day for men and 1.1 mg/day for women), “but it’s possible that people with migraine headaches need more riboflavin,” Dr. Slavin suggested. Professional societies in the United States (Neurology. 2012 Apr;78[17]: 1346-53) and Canada (Can J Neurol Sci. 2012 Mar;39[Suppl 2]S8-S28) have gone on record with some level of recommendation for a daily riboflavin supplement of 400 mg to prevent migraine headaches, she said.

A U.S. guideline that included riboflavin has been “retired” because of an issue unrelated to riboflavin, according to the Neurology website.

The new study ran data collected in the biennial National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), specifically the surveys from 2001-2002 and 2003-2004. The combined data included 5,528 adults 20-50 years old, and 3,634 with complete data and without an excluding condition such as pregnancy, diabetes, or menopause. Among the study participants 884 reported having “severe headaches or migraines,” during the 3 months preceding the survey and the remaining 2,750 people served as controls. People who reported recent severe headache or migraine overall had a significantly lower average amount of vitamin B2 in their diet than did the controls, but the two subgroups showed no significant differences in their levels of riboflavin intake from supplements, or from both diet and supplements combined.

The researchers calculated odds ratios for people having severe headaches or migraines relative to their riboflavin-intake quartile, and they adjusted the findings for age, sex, body mass index, and alcohol intake.

Further analysis that looked at total riboflavin intake, from both food and supplements, showed that the two middle quartiles for this metric, with a combined riboflavin intake of 1.6-3.8 mg/day, had a significantly reduced prevalence of recent severe or migraine headaches, compared with the lowest-intake quartile, with an odds ratio that roughly matched the dietary riboflavin analysis.

Dr. Slavin has received research funding from the Egg Nutrition Center, the Maryland Soybean Board, the McCormick Science Institute, and PepsiCo.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Slavin M. Headache. 2019 June;59[S1]:1-208, Abstract LBOR04.

PHILADELPHIA – People with moderately high levels of riboflavin consumption from food – two to three times the recommended dietary allowance – had a significantly lower prevalence of a recent severe or migraine headache in a study of more than 3,600 younger U.S. adults.

Adults 20-50 years old who consumed 2.07-2.87 mg riboflavin (vitamin B₂) in food a day based on a 24-hour recall questionnaire had an adjusted, statistically significant 27% reduced prevalence of a recent severe or migraine headache, compared with people in the lowest quartile of dietary riboflavin intake, 1.45 mg/day or less, Margaret Slavin, Ph.D., said at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society. Foods particularly high in riboflavin include eggs, milk, and meat.

Dietary riboflavin intakes greater than 2.87 mg/day were not linked to a difference in the prevalence of a recent history of severe or migraine headache, compared with lowest-quartile consumption. Additionally, riboflavin intake from supplements alone at any level of consumption also showed no statistically significant link with the prevalence of a recent, severe headache, said Dr. Slavin, a nutrition and food studies researcher at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va.

The “vast majority” of people in the study had a riboflavin intake that at least matched the U.S. recommended dietary allowance (RDA),1.3 mg/ day for men and 1.1 mg/day for women), “but it’s possible that people with migraine headaches need more riboflavin,” Dr. Slavin suggested. Professional societies in the United States (Neurology. 2012 Apr;78[17]: 1346-53) and Canada (Can J Neurol Sci. 2012 Mar;39[Suppl 2]S8-S28) have gone on record with some level of recommendation for a daily riboflavin supplement of 400 mg to prevent migraine headaches, she said.

A U.S. guideline that included riboflavin has been “retired” because of an issue unrelated to riboflavin, according to the Neurology website.

The new study ran data collected in the biennial National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), specifically the surveys from 2001-2002 and 2003-2004. The combined data included 5,528 adults 20-50 years old, and 3,634 with complete data and without an excluding condition such as pregnancy, diabetes, or menopause. Among the study participants 884 reported having “severe headaches or migraines,” during the 3 months preceding the survey and the remaining 2,750 people served as controls. People who reported recent severe headache or migraine overall had a significantly lower average amount of vitamin B2 in their diet than did the controls, but the two subgroups showed no significant differences in their levels of riboflavin intake from supplements, or from both diet and supplements combined.

The researchers calculated odds ratios for people having severe headaches or migraines relative to their riboflavin-intake quartile, and they adjusted the findings for age, sex, body mass index, and alcohol intake.

Further analysis that looked at total riboflavin intake, from both food and supplements, showed that the two middle quartiles for this metric, with a combined riboflavin intake of 1.6-3.8 mg/day, had a significantly reduced prevalence of recent severe or migraine headaches, compared with the lowest-intake quartile, with an odds ratio that roughly matched the dietary riboflavin analysis.

Dr. Slavin has received research funding from the Egg Nutrition Center, the Maryland Soybean Board, the McCormick Science Institute, and PepsiCo.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Slavin M. Headache. 2019 June;59[S1]:1-208, Abstract LBOR04.

SAN ANTONIO – Most attention paid to barriers for medication-assisted treatment of opioid use disorder has focused on prescribers and patients, but pharmacists are “a neglected link in the chain,” according to Hannah Cooper, ScD, an assistant professor of behavioral sciences and health education at Emory University, Atlanta.

StockPlanets/Getty Images

“Pharmacy-based dispensing of buprenorphine is one of the medication’s major advances over methadone,” Dr. Cooper told attendees at the annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence. Yet, early interviews she and her colleagues conducted with rural Kentucky pharmacist colleagues in the CARE2HOPE study “revealed that pharmacy-level barriers might also curtail access to buprenorphine.”

Little research has examined those barriers, but one past survey of pharmacists in West Virginia found that half did not stock buprenorphine, Dr. Cooper noted. Further, anecdotal evidence has suggested that wholesaler concerns about Drug Enforcement Administration restrictions on dispensing buprenorphine has caused shortages at pharmacies.

Dr. Cooper and colleagues, therefore, designed a qualitative study aimed at learning about pharmacists’ attitudes and dispensing practices related to buprenorphine. They also looked at whether DEA limits actually exist on dispensing the drug. They interviewed 14 pharmacists operating 15 pharmacies across all 12 counties in two rural Kentucky health districts. Eleven of the pharmacists worked in independent pharmacies; the others worked at chains. Six pharmacies dispensed more than 100 buprenorphine prescriptions a month, five dispensed only several dozen a month, and four refused to dispense it at all.

Perceptions of federal restrictions

“Variations in buprenorphine dispensing did not solely reflect underlying variations in local need or prescribing practices,” Dr. Cooper said. At 12 of the 15 pharmacies, limits on buprenorphine resulted from a perceived DEA “cap” on dispensing the drug or “because of distrust in buprenorphine itself, its prescribers and its patients.”

The perceived cap from the DEA was shrouded in uncertainty: 10 of the pharmacists said the DEA capped the percentage of controlled substances pharmacists could dispense that were opioids, yet the pharmacists did not know what that percentage was.

Five of those interviewed said the cap often significantly cut short how many buprenorphine prescriptions they would dispense. Since they did not know how much the cap was, they internally set arbitrary limits, such as dispensing two prescriptions per day, to avoid risk of the DEA investigating their pharmacy.

Yet, those limits could not meet patient demand, so several pharmacists rationed buprenorphine only to local residents or long-term customers, causing additional problems. That practice strained relationships with prescribers, who then had to call multiple pharmacies to find one that would dispense the drug to new patients. It also put pharmacy staff at risk when a rejection angered a customer and “undermined local recovery efforts,” Dr. Cooper said.

Five other pharmacists, however, did not ration their buprenorphine and did not worry about exceeding the DEA cap.

No numerical cap appears to exist, but DEA regulations and the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act do require internal opioid surveillance systems at wholesalers that flag suspicious orders of controlled substances, including buprenorphine. And they enforce it: An $80 million settlement in 2013 resulted from the DEA’s charge that Walgreens distribution centers did not report suspicious drug orders.

Stigma among some pharmacists

Six of the pharmacists had low trust in buprenorphine and in those who prescribed it and used it, Dr. Cooper reported. Three would not dispense the drug at all, and two would not take new buprenorphine patients.

One such pharmacist told researchers: “It is supposed to be the drug to help them [recover.] They want Suboxone worse than they do the hydrocodone. … It’s not what it’s designed to be.”

Those pharmacists also reported believing that malpractice was common among prescribers, who, for example, did not provide required counseling to patients or did not quickly wean them off buprenorphine. The pharmacists perceived the physicians prescribing buprenorphine as doing so only to make more money, just as they had done by prescribing opioids in the first place.

Those pharmacists also believed the patients themselves sold buprenorphine to make money and that opioid use disorder was a choice. They told researchers that dispensing buprenorphine would bring more drug users to their stores and subsequently hurt business.

Yet, those beliefs were not universal among the pharmacists. Eight believed buprenorphine was an appropriate opioid use disorder treatment and had positive attitudes toward patients. Unlike those who viewed the disorder as a choice, those pharmacists saw it as a disease and viewed the patients admirably for their commitment to recovery.

Though a small, qualitative study, those findings suggest a need to more closely examine how pharmacies affect access to medication to treat opioid use disorder, Dr. Cooper said.

“In an epicenter of the U.S. opioid epidemic, policies and stigma curtail access to buprenorphine,” she told attendees. “DEA regulations, the SUPPORT Act, and related lawsuits have led wholesalers to develop proprietary caps that force some pharmacists to ration the number of buprenorphine prescriptions they filled.” Some pharmacists will not dispense the drug at all, while others “limited dispensing to known or local patients and prescribers, a practice that pharmacists recognized hurt patients who had to travel far to reach prescribers.”

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health through CARE2HOPE, Rural Health Project, and the Emory Center for AIDS Research. The authors reported no disclosures.

SAN ANTONIO – Most attention paid to barriers for medication-assisted treatment of opioid use disorder has focused on prescribers and patients, but pharmacists are “a neglected link in the chain,” according to Hannah Cooper, ScD, an assistant professor of behavioral sciences and health education at Emory University, Atlanta.

StockPlanets/Getty Images

“Pharmacy-based dispensing of buprenorphine is one of the medication’s major advances over methadone,” Dr. Cooper told attendees at the annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence. Yet, early interviews she and her colleagues conducted with rural Kentucky pharmacist colleagues in the CARE2HOPE study “revealed that pharmacy-level barriers might also curtail access to buprenorphine.”

Little research has examined those barriers, but one past survey of pharmacists in West Virginia found that half did not stock buprenorphine, Dr. Cooper noted. Further, anecdotal evidence has suggested that wholesaler concerns about Drug Enforcement Administration restrictions on dispensing buprenorphine has caused shortages at pharmacies.

Dr. Cooper and colleagues, therefore, designed a qualitative study aimed at learning about pharmacists’ attitudes and dispensing practices related to buprenorphine. They also looked at whether DEA limits actually exist on dispensing the drug. They interviewed 14 pharmacists operating 15 pharmacies across all 12 counties in two rural Kentucky health districts. Eleven of the pharmacists worked in independent pharmacies; the others worked at chains. Six pharmacies dispensed more than 100 buprenorphine prescriptions a month, five dispensed only several dozen a month, and four refused to dispense it at all.

Perceptions of federal restrictions

“Variations in buprenorphine dispensing did not solely reflect underlying variations in local need or prescribing practices,” Dr. Cooper said. At 12 of the 15 pharmacies, limits on buprenorphine resulted from a perceived DEA “cap” on dispensing the drug or “because of distrust in buprenorphine itself, its prescribers and its patients.”

The perceived cap from the DEA was shrouded in uncertainty: 10 of the pharmacists said the DEA capped the percentage of controlled substances pharmacists could dispense that were opioids, yet the pharmacists did not know what that percentage was.

Five of those interviewed said the cap often significantly cut short how many buprenorphine prescriptions they would dispense. Since they did not know how much the cap was, they internally set arbitrary limits, such as dispensing two prescriptions per day, to avoid risk of the DEA investigating their pharmacy.

Yet, those limits could not meet patient demand, so several pharmacists rationed buprenorphine only to local residents or long-term customers, causing additional problems. That practice strained relationships with prescribers, who then had to call multiple pharmacies to find one that would dispense the drug to new patients. It also put pharmacy staff at risk when a rejection angered a customer and “undermined local recovery efforts,” Dr. Cooper said.

Five other pharmacists, however, did not ration their buprenorphine and did not worry about exceeding the DEA cap.

No numerical cap appears to exist, but DEA regulations and the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act do require internal opioid surveillance systems at wholesalers that flag suspicious orders of controlled substances, including buprenorphine. And they enforce it: An $80 million settlement in 2013 resulted from the DEA’s charge that Walgreens distribution centers did not report suspicious drug orders.

Stigma among some pharmacists

Six of the pharmacists had low trust in buprenorphine and in those who prescribed it and used it, Dr. Cooper reported. Three would not dispense the drug at all, and two would not take new buprenorphine patients.

One such pharmacist told researchers: “It is supposed to be the drug to help them [recover.] They want Suboxone worse than they do the hydrocodone. … It’s not what it’s designed to be.”

Those pharmacists also reported believing that malpractice was common among prescribers, who, for example, did not provide required counseling to patients or did not quickly wean them off buprenorphine. The pharmacists perceived the physicians prescribing buprenorphine as doing so only to make more money, just as they had done by prescribing opioids in the first place.

Those pharmacists also believed the patients themselves sold buprenorphine to make money and that opioid use disorder was a choice. They told researchers that dispensing buprenorphine would bring more drug users to their stores and subsequently hurt business.

Yet, those beliefs were not universal among the pharmacists. Eight believed buprenorphine was an appropriate opioid use disorder treatment and had positive attitudes toward patients. Unlike those who viewed the disorder as a choice, those pharmacists saw it as a disease and viewed the patients admirably for their commitment to recovery.

Though a small, qualitative study, those findings suggest a need to more closely examine how pharmacies affect access to medication to treat opioid use disorder, Dr. Cooper said.

“In an epicenter of the U.S. opioid epidemic, policies and stigma curtail access to buprenorphine,” she told attendees. “DEA regulations, the SUPPORT Act, and related lawsuits have led wholesalers to develop proprietary caps that force some pharmacists to ration the number of buprenorphine prescriptions they filled.” Some pharmacists will not dispense the drug at all, while others “limited dispensing to known or local patients and prescribers, a practice that pharmacists recognized hurt patients who had to travel far to reach prescribers.”

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health through CARE2HOPE, Rural Health Project, and the Emory Center for AIDS Research. The authors reported no disclosures.

SAN ANTONIO – Most attention paid to barriers for medication-assisted treatment of opioid use disorder has focused on prescribers and patients, but pharmacists are “a neglected link in the chain,” according to Hannah Cooper, ScD, an assistant professor of behavioral sciences and health education at Emory University, Atlanta.

StockPlanets/Getty Images

“Pharmacy-based dispensing of buprenorphine is one of the medication’s major advances over methadone,” Dr. Cooper told attendees at the annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence. Yet, early interviews she and her colleagues conducted with rural Kentucky pharmacist colleagues in the CARE2HOPE study “revealed that pharmacy-level barriers might also curtail access to buprenorphine.”

Little research has examined those barriers, but one past survey of pharmacists in West Virginia found that half did not stock buprenorphine, Dr. Cooper noted. Further, anecdotal evidence has suggested that wholesaler concerns about Drug Enforcement Administration restrictions on dispensing buprenorphine has caused shortages at pharmacies.

Dr. Cooper and colleagues, therefore, designed a qualitative study aimed at learning about pharmacists’ attitudes and dispensing practices related to buprenorphine. They also looked at whether DEA limits actually exist on dispensing the drug. They interviewed 14 pharmacists operating 15 pharmacies across all 12 counties in two rural Kentucky health districts. Eleven of the pharmacists worked in independent pharmacies; the others worked at chains. Six pharmacies dispensed more than 100 buprenorphine prescriptions a month, five dispensed only several dozen a month, and four refused to dispense it at all.

Perceptions of federal restrictions

“Variations in buprenorphine dispensing did not solely reflect underlying variations in local need or prescribing practices,” Dr. Cooper said. At 12 of the 15 pharmacies, limits on buprenorphine resulted from a perceived DEA “cap” on dispensing the drug or “because of distrust in buprenorphine itself, its prescribers and its patients.”

The perceived cap from the DEA was shrouded in uncertainty: 10 of the pharmacists said the DEA capped the percentage of controlled substances pharmacists could dispense that were opioids, yet the pharmacists did not know what that percentage was.

Five of those interviewed said the cap often significantly cut short how many buprenorphine prescriptions they would dispense. Since they did not know how much the cap was, they internally set arbitrary limits, such as dispensing two prescriptions per day, to avoid risk of the DEA investigating their pharmacy.

Yet, those limits could not meet patient demand, so several pharmacists rationed buprenorphine only to local residents or long-term customers, causing additional problems. That practice strained relationships with prescribers, who then had to call multiple pharmacies to find one that would dispense the drug to new patients. It also put pharmacy staff at risk when a rejection angered a customer and “undermined local recovery efforts,” Dr. Cooper said.

Five other pharmacists, however, did not ration their buprenorphine and did not worry about exceeding the DEA cap.

No numerical cap appears to exist, but DEA regulations and the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act do require internal opioid surveillance systems at wholesalers that flag suspicious orders of controlled substances, including buprenorphine. And they enforce it: An $80 million settlement in 2013 resulted from the DEA’s charge that Walgreens distribution centers did not report suspicious drug orders.

Stigma among some pharmacists

Six of the pharmacists had low trust in buprenorphine and in those who prescribed it and used it, Dr. Cooper reported. Three would not dispense the drug at all, and two would not take new buprenorphine patients.

One such pharmacist told researchers: “It is supposed to be the drug to help them [recover.] They want Suboxone worse than they do the hydrocodone. … It’s not what it’s designed to be.”

Those pharmacists also reported believing that malpractice was common among prescribers, who, for example, did not provide required counseling to patients or did not quickly wean them off buprenorphine. The pharmacists perceived the physicians prescribing buprenorphine as doing so only to make more money, just as they had done by prescribing opioids in the first place.

Those pharmacists also believed the patients themselves sold buprenorphine to make money and that opioid use disorder was a choice. They told researchers that dispensing buprenorphine would bring more drug users to their stores and subsequently hurt business.

Yet, those beliefs were not universal among the pharmacists. Eight believed buprenorphine was an appropriate opioid use disorder treatment and had positive attitudes toward patients. Unlike those who viewed the disorder as a choice, those pharmacists saw it as a disease and viewed the patients admirably for their commitment to recovery.

Though a small, qualitative study, those findings suggest a need to more closely examine how pharmacies affect access to medication to treat opioid use disorder, Dr. Cooper said.

“In an epicenter of the U.S. opioid epidemic, policies and stigma curtail access to buprenorphine,” she told attendees. “DEA regulations, the SUPPORT Act, and related lawsuits have led wholesalers to develop proprietary caps that force some pharmacists to ration the number of buprenorphine prescriptions they filled.” Some pharmacists will not dispense the drug at all, while others “limited dispensing to known or local patients and prescribers, a practice that pharmacists recognized hurt patients who had to travel far to reach prescribers.”

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health through CARE2HOPE, Rural Health Project, and the Emory Center for AIDS Research. The authors reported no disclosures.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first generics of pregabalin (Lyrica) for the treatment of a variety of diseases.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

The generics were approved to manage neuropathic pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, and fibromyalgia, as well as neuropathic pain associated with spinal cord injury, and as an adjunctive therapy for the treatment of partial-onset seizures in patients aged 17 years and older. Approvals were granted to Alembic Pharmaceuticals, Alkem Laboratories, Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, InvaGen Pharmaceuticals, MSN Laboratories, Rising Pharmaceuticals, Sciegen Pharmaceuticals, and Teva Pharmaceuticals.

The most common adverse events associated with pregabalin include dizziness, somnolence, dry mouth, swelling, blurred vision, weight gain, and abnormal thinking. Pregabalin must be dispensed with a patient Medication Guide containing a guide to the drug’s uses and risks. Angioedema, hypersensitivity reactions, increased seizure frequency, increased suicidal behavior, and peripheral edema are all possible.

“Today’s approval of the first generics for pregabalin, a widely used medication, is another example of the FDA’s long-standing commitment to advance patient access to lower-cost, high-quality generic medicines,” Janet Woodcock, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a press release.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first generics of pregabalin (Lyrica) for the treatment of a variety of diseases.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

The generics were approved to manage neuropathic pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, and fibromyalgia, as well as neuropathic pain associated with spinal cord injury, and as an adjunctive therapy for the treatment of partial-onset seizures in patients aged 17 years and older. Approvals were granted to Alembic Pharmaceuticals, Alkem Laboratories, Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, InvaGen Pharmaceuticals, MSN Laboratories, Rising Pharmaceuticals, Sciegen Pharmaceuticals, and Teva Pharmaceuticals.

The most common adverse events associated with pregabalin include dizziness, somnolence, dry mouth, swelling, blurred vision, weight gain, and abnormal thinking. Pregabalin must be dispensed with a patient Medication Guide containing a guide to the drug’s uses and risks. Angioedema, hypersensitivity reactions, increased seizure frequency, increased suicidal behavior, and peripheral edema are all possible.

“Today’s approval of the first generics for pregabalin, a widely used medication, is another example of the FDA’s long-standing commitment to advance patient access to lower-cost, high-quality generic medicines,” Janet Woodcock, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a press release.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first generics of pregabalin (Lyrica) for the treatment of a variety of diseases.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

The generics were approved to manage neuropathic pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, and fibromyalgia, as well as neuropathic pain associated with spinal cord injury, and as an adjunctive therapy for the treatment of partial-onset seizures in patients aged 17 years and older. Approvals were granted to Alembic Pharmaceuticals, Alkem Laboratories, Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, InvaGen Pharmaceuticals, MSN Laboratories, Rising Pharmaceuticals, Sciegen Pharmaceuticals, and Teva Pharmaceuticals.

The most common adverse events associated with pregabalin include dizziness, somnolence, dry mouth, swelling, blurred vision, weight gain, and abnormal thinking. Pregabalin must be dispensed with a patient Medication Guide containing a guide to the drug’s uses and risks. Angioedema, hypersensitivity reactions, increased seizure frequency, increased suicidal behavior, and peripheral edema are all possible.

“Today’s approval of the first generics for pregabalin, a widely used medication, is another example of the FDA’s long-standing commitment to advance patient access to lower-cost, high-quality generic medicines,” Janet Woodcock, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a press release.

[email protected]

PHILADELPHIA – Nearly one-fifth of U.S. residents who self-reported symptoms consistent with a diagnosis of migraine also self-reported drug use for their migraine attacks that constituted medication overuse, according to findings from an analysis of 16,789 people with migraine.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

About 18% of the people identified with migraine in the study cohort reported a drug consumption pattern that met the prespecified definition of “medication overuse,” Todd J. Schwedt, MD, and his associates reported in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society. Supplying each migraine patient with a “comprehensive treatment plan” along with “improved acute treatment options ... may help reduce the prevalence and associated burden of medication overuse,” said Dr. Schwedt, a professor of neurology at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix. The analysis also showed that medication overuse (MO) significantly linked with several markers of worse clinical status.

If patients have “an effective preventive treatment that reduces headaches and migraine attacks then they will, in general, use less acute medications. Many people with migraine never even get diagnosed, and patients who qualify for preventive treatment never get it,” Dr. Schwedt noted in an interview. He described a comprehensive treatment plan as a management strategy that includes lifestyle modifications, a migraine-prevention agent, and the availability of an effective acute treatment for a patient to use when a migraine strikes along with clear instructions on how to appropriately self-administer the medication. Only a small fraction of U.S. migraine patients currently receive this complete package of care, he said.

The analysis he ran used data collected in the CaMEO (Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes) study, which used an Internet-based survey to collect data from a representative 58,000-person sample of U.S. residents, which included 16,789 who met the applied migraine definition, with 91% having fewer than 15 headaches/month and the remaining 9% with a monthly headache average of 15 or more (Cephalagia. 2015 Jun;35[7]:563-78).

The researchers defined overuse of a single medication as use 15 times or more a month of an NSAID, aspirin, or acetaminophen, or use at least 10 times a month of a triptan, ergotamine, or opioid. They also had a prespecified definition of multidrug overuse that applied similar monthly thresholds. The patients averaged about 41 years old, three-quarters were women, and 85% were white. Patients identified with MO had a substantially higher rate of headaches per month: an average of nearly 12, compared with an average of about 4 per month among those without overuse. Almost two-thirds of the patients with MO reported having been formally diagnosed as having migraine headaches, compared with 41% of those without overuse.

Among the 13,749 patients (82%) on some headache medication, 67% were on a nonopioid analgesic, including 61% on an NSAID. MO among all people on nonopioid analgesics was 16%, and 12% among those who used NSAIDS. The most overused drug in this subgroup were combination analgesics, overused by 18% of those taking these drugs.

The drug class with the biggest MO rate was opioids, used by 12% of those on any medication and overused by 22% of those taking an opioid. Triptans were taken by 11%, with an MO rate of 11% among these users. Ergotamine was used by less than 1% of all patients, and those taking this drug tallied a 19% MO rate.

“Opioids were the class most often overused, more evidence that opioids should rarely if ever be used to treat migraine,” Dr. Schwedt said.

The analysis also showed that patients who had MO has multiple signs of worse clinical status. Patients with MO had a significantly higher rate of diagnosed depression, 54%, compared with 28% in those without MO; anxiety, 49% compared with 26%; migraine-associated disability, 73% compared with 32%; migraine-associated functional impairment (Migraine Interictal Burden Scale), 65% compared with 32%; and emergency department or urgent care use, 13% compared with 3%. All these between-group differences were statistically significant.

CaMEO was funded by Allergan. Dr. Schwedt has been a consultant to Allergan, and also to Alder, Amgen, Cipla, Dr. Reddy’s, Ipsen, Lilly, Novartis, and Teva. He has stock ownership in Aural Analytics, Nocira, and Second Opinion, and he has received research funding from Amgen.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Schwedt TJ et al. Headache. 2019 June;59[S1]:83-4, Abstract P92.

PHILADELPHIA – Nearly one-fifth of U.S. residents who self-reported symptoms consistent with a diagnosis of migraine also self-reported drug use for their migraine attacks that constituted medication overuse, according to findings from an analysis of 16,789 people with migraine.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

About 18% of the people identified with migraine in the study cohort reported a drug consumption pattern that met the prespecified definition of “medication overuse,” Todd J. Schwedt, MD, and his associates reported in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society. Supplying each migraine patient with a “comprehensive treatment plan” along with “improved acute treatment options ... may help reduce the prevalence and associated burden of medication overuse,” said Dr. Schwedt, a professor of neurology at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix. The analysis also showed that medication overuse (MO) significantly linked with several markers of worse clinical status.

If patients have “an effective preventive treatment that reduces headaches and migraine attacks then they will, in general, use less acute medications. Many people with migraine never even get diagnosed, and patients who qualify for preventive treatment never get it,” Dr. Schwedt noted in an interview. He described a comprehensive treatment plan as a management strategy that includes lifestyle modifications, a migraine-prevention agent, and the availability of an effective acute treatment for a patient to use when a migraine strikes along with clear instructions on how to appropriately self-administer the medication. Only a small fraction of U.S. migraine patients currently receive this complete package of care, he said.

The analysis he ran used data collected in the CaMEO (Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes) study, which used an Internet-based survey to collect data from a representative 58,000-person sample of U.S. residents, which included 16,789 who met the applied migraine definition, with 91% having fewer than 15 headaches/month and the remaining 9% with a monthly headache average of 15 or more (Cephalagia. 2015 Jun;35[7]:563-78).

The researchers defined overuse of a single medication as use 15 times or more a month of an NSAID, aspirin, or acetaminophen, or use at least 10 times a month of a triptan, ergotamine, or opioid. They also had a prespecified definition of multidrug overuse that applied similar monthly thresholds. The patients averaged about 41 years old, three-quarters were women, and 85% were white. Patients identified with MO had a substantially higher rate of headaches per month: an average of nearly 12, compared with an average of about 4 per month among those without overuse. Almost two-thirds of the patients with MO reported having been formally diagnosed as having migraine headaches, compared with 41% of those without overuse.

Among the 13,749 patients (82%) on some headache medication, 67% were on a nonopioid analgesic, including 61% on an NSAID. MO among all people on nonopioid analgesics was 16%, and 12% among those who used NSAIDS. The most overused drug in this subgroup were combination analgesics, overused by 18% of those taking these drugs.

The drug class with the biggest MO rate was opioids, used by 12% of those on any medication and overused by 22% of those taking an opioid. Triptans were taken by 11%, with an MO rate of 11% among these users. Ergotamine was used by less than 1% of all patients, and those taking this drug tallied a 19% MO rate.

“Opioids were the class most often overused, more evidence that opioids should rarely if ever be used to treat migraine,” Dr. Schwedt said.

The analysis also showed that patients who had MO has multiple signs of worse clinical status. Patients with MO had a significantly higher rate of diagnosed depression, 54%, compared with 28% in those without MO; anxiety, 49% compared with 26%; migraine-associated disability, 73% compared with 32%; migraine-associated functional impairment (Migraine Interictal Burden Scale), 65% compared with 32%; and emergency department or urgent care use, 13% compared with 3%. All these between-group differences were statistically significant.

CaMEO was funded by Allergan. Dr. Schwedt has been a consultant to Allergan, and also to Alder, Amgen, Cipla, Dr. Reddy’s, Ipsen, Lilly, Novartis, and Teva. He has stock ownership in Aural Analytics, Nocira, and Second Opinion, and he has received research funding from Amgen.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Schwedt TJ et al. Headache. 2019 June;59[S1]:83-4, Abstract P92.

PHILADELPHIA – Nearly one-fifth of U.S. residents who self-reported symptoms consistent with a diagnosis of migraine also self-reported drug use for their migraine attacks that constituted medication overuse, according to findings from an analysis of 16,789 people with migraine.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

About 18% of the people identified with migraine in the study cohort reported a drug consumption pattern that met the prespecified definition of “medication overuse,” Todd J. Schwedt, MD, and his associates reported in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society. Supplying each migraine patient with a “comprehensive treatment plan” along with “improved acute treatment options ... may help reduce the prevalence and associated burden of medication overuse,” said Dr. Schwedt, a professor of neurology at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix. The analysis also showed that medication overuse (MO) significantly linked with several markers of worse clinical status.

If patients have “an effective preventive treatment that reduces headaches and migraine attacks then they will, in general, use less acute medications. Many people with migraine never even get diagnosed, and patients who qualify for preventive treatment never get it,” Dr. Schwedt noted in an interview. He described a comprehensive treatment plan as a management strategy that includes lifestyle modifications, a migraine-prevention agent, and the availability of an effective acute treatment for a patient to use when a migraine strikes along with clear instructions on how to appropriately self-administer the medication. Only a small fraction of U.S. migraine patients currently receive this complete package of care, he said.

The analysis he ran used data collected in the CaMEO (Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes) study, which used an Internet-based survey to collect data from a representative 58,000-person sample of U.S. residents, which included 16,789 who met the applied migraine definition, with 91% having fewer than 15 headaches/month and the remaining 9% with a monthly headache average of 15 or more (Cephalagia. 2015 Jun;35[7]:563-78).

The researchers defined overuse of a single medication as use 15 times or more a month of an NSAID, aspirin, or acetaminophen, or use at least 10 times a month of a triptan, ergotamine, or opioid. They also had a prespecified definition of multidrug overuse that applied similar monthly thresholds. The patients averaged about 41 years old, three-quarters were women, and 85% were white. Patients identified with MO had a substantially higher rate of headaches per month: an average of nearly 12, compared with an average of about 4 per month among those without overuse. Almost two-thirds of the patients with MO reported having been formally diagnosed as having migraine headaches, compared with 41% of those without overuse.

Among the 13,749 patients (82%) on some headache medication, 67% were on a nonopioid analgesic, including 61% on an NSAID. MO among all people on nonopioid analgesics was 16%, and 12% among those who used NSAIDS. The most overused drug in this subgroup were combination analgesics, overused by 18% of those taking these drugs.

The drug class with the biggest MO rate was opioids, used by 12% of those on any medication and overused by 22% of those taking an opioid. Triptans were taken by 11%, with an MO rate of 11% among these users. Ergotamine was used by less than 1% of all patients, and those taking this drug tallied a 19% MO rate.

“Opioids were the class most often overused, more evidence that opioids should rarely if ever be used to treat migraine,” Dr. Schwedt said.

The analysis also showed that patients who had MO has multiple signs of worse clinical status. Patients with MO had a significantly higher rate of diagnosed depression, 54%, compared with 28% in those without MO; anxiety, 49% compared with 26%; migraine-associated disability, 73% compared with 32%; migraine-associated functional impairment (Migraine Interictal Burden Scale), 65% compared with 32%; and emergency department or urgent care use, 13% compared with 3%. All these between-group differences were statistically significant.

CaMEO was funded by Allergan. Dr. Schwedt has been a consultant to Allergan, and also to Alder, Amgen, Cipla, Dr. Reddy’s, Ipsen, Lilly, Novartis, and Teva. He has stock ownership in Aural Analytics, Nocira, and Second Opinion, and he has received research funding from Amgen.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Schwedt TJ et al. Headache. 2019 June;59[S1]:83-4, Abstract P92.