User login
Opioid management program reduced number of narcotics prescribed after breast surgery
An opioid prescription management program implemented at the Cleveland Clinic has led to a reduction in the number of narcotics prescribed to patients after breast surgery, according to research presented in a recent webcast from the annual meeting of the American Society of Breast Surgeons.
“The opioid epidemic has become a critical issue, and narcotic abuse has continued to rise,” Stephanie Valente, DO, FACS, from the Cleveland Clinic, said in her presentation. “Excess narcotic prescriptions may be contributing to this opioid epidemic,” and there are no current narcotic prescribing guidelines for patients after breast surgery, she said. In addition, studies have shown surgeons can overestimate the number of opioid pills a patient needs after surgery for pain control, and any excess pills are at risk of being stolen or inappropriately used, she added.
Dr. Valente and colleagues performed a baseline evaluation of narcotic pills prescribed by surgeons at the Cleveland Clinic for patients who have undergone excisional biopsy or lumpectomy, mastectomy, and mastectomy with reconstruction. They found the median number of narcotics prescribed were 15 pills for excisional biopsy or lumpectomy patients, 20 pills for mastectomy patients and 28 pills for mastectomy with reconstruction patients.
The researchers sought to lower those numbers, and created a departmental change in which they decreased the median number of pills prescribed at discharge from 15 pills to 10 pills for excisional biopsy or lumpectomy patients and from 28 pills to 25 pills for patients who undergo mastectomy with reconstruction. They then examined 100 consecutive patients after a 3-month implementation period to determine whether prescribing numbers had changed and found the surgeons adhered to the prescribing guidelines, which resulted in a statistically significant reduction in median opioid pills prescribed for excisional biopsy or lumpectomy (P less than .01) and mastectomy with reconstruction patients (P less than .01).
“After their departmental plan change, we observed that, as planned, a statistically significant decrease in prescribing practices amongst surgeons was able to be performed, showing that surgeons were able to adhere to these new prescribing practices,” said Dr. Valente.
When they examined the number of pills patients reported they used after surgery, they found excisional biopsy or lumpectomy patients took an average of 1 pill, mastectomy patients took an average of 3 pills, and mastectomy with reconstruction patients took an average of 18 pills. “These were all statistically much less than what was being prescribed even after our purposeful reduction,” said Dr. Valente.
In the study, 40% of patients who underwent breast surgery overall reported that they did not have any postoperative narcotic use at all, with the least narcotic use seen among patients who underwent excisional biopsy or lumpectomy.
“Further directions for opiate reduction can include evaluation of the impact of type and amount of local anesthetic given intraoperatively, and the amount of narcotics used postoperatively … to identify patient factors that contribute to the low narcotic usage postoperatively, and finally, to figure out how to maximize the benefit of adding a formal ERAS [enhanced recovery after surgery] protocol to further reduce patient needs for as many narcotic pills,” said Dr. Valente.
Dr. Valente had no disclosures.
An opioid prescription management program implemented at the Cleveland Clinic has led to a reduction in the number of narcotics prescribed to patients after breast surgery, according to research presented in a recent webcast from the annual meeting of the American Society of Breast Surgeons.
“The opioid epidemic has become a critical issue, and narcotic abuse has continued to rise,” Stephanie Valente, DO, FACS, from the Cleveland Clinic, said in her presentation. “Excess narcotic prescriptions may be contributing to this opioid epidemic,” and there are no current narcotic prescribing guidelines for patients after breast surgery, she said. In addition, studies have shown surgeons can overestimate the number of opioid pills a patient needs after surgery for pain control, and any excess pills are at risk of being stolen or inappropriately used, she added.
Dr. Valente and colleagues performed a baseline evaluation of narcotic pills prescribed by surgeons at the Cleveland Clinic for patients who have undergone excisional biopsy or lumpectomy, mastectomy, and mastectomy with reconstruction. They found the median number of narcotics prescribed were 15 pills for excisional biopsy or lumpectomy patients, 20 pills for mastectomy patients and 28 pills for mastectomy with reconstruction patients.
The researchers sought to lower those numbers, and created a departmental change in which they decreased the median number of pills prescribed at discharge from 15 pills to 10 pills for excisional biopsy or lumpectomy patients and from 28 pills to 25 pills for patients who undergo mastectomy with reconstruction. They then examined 100 consecutive patients after a 3-month implementation period to determine whether prescribing numbers had changed and found the surgeons adhered to the prescribing guidelines, which resulted in a statistically significant reduction in median opioid pills prescribed for excisional biopsy or lumpectomy (P less than .01) and mastectomy with reconstruction patients (P less than .01).
“After their departmental plan change, we observed that, as planned, a statistically significant decrease in prescribing practices amongst surgeons was able to be performed, showing that surgeons were able to adhere to these new prescribing practices,” said Dr. Valente.
When they examined the number of pills patients reported they used after surgery, they found excisional biopsy or lumpectomy patients took an average of 1 pill, mastectomy patients took an average of 3 pills, and mastectomy with reconstruction patients took an average of 18 pills. “These were all statistically much less than what was being prescribed even after our purposeful reduction,” said Dr. Valente.
In the study, 40% of patients who underwent breast surgery overall reported that they did not have any postoperative narcotic use at all, with the least narcotic use seen among patients who underwent excisional biopsy or lumpectomy.
“Further directions for opiate reduction can include evaluation of the impact of type and amount of local anesthetic given intraoperatively, and the amount of narcotics used postoperatively … to identify patient factors that contribute to the low narcotic usage postoperatively, and finally, to figure out how to maximize the benefit of adding a formal ERAS [enhanced recovery after surgery] protocol to further reduce patient needs for as many narcotic pills,” said Dr. Valente.
Dr. Valente had no disclosures.
An opioid prescription management program implemented at the Cleveland Clinic has led to a reduction in the number of narcotics prescribed to patients after breast surgery, according to research presented in a recent webcast from the annual meeting of the American Society of Breast Surgeons.
“The opioid epidemic has become a critical issue, and narcotic abuse has continued to rise,” Stephanie Valente, DO, FACS, from the Cleveland Clinic, said in her presentation. “Excess narcotic prescriptions may be contributing to this opioid epidemic,” and there are no current narcotic prescribing guidelines for patients after breast surgery, she said. In addition, studies have shown surgeons can overestimate the number of opioid pills a patient needs after surgery for pain control, and any excess pills are at risk of being stolen or inappropriately used, she added.
Dr. Valente and colleagues performed a baseline evaluation of narcotic pills prescribed by surgeons at the Cleveland Clinic for patients who have undergone excisional biopsy or lumpectomy, mastectomy, and mastectomy with reconstruction. They found the median number of narcotics prescribed were 15 pills for excisional biopsy or lumpectomy patients, 20 pills for mastectomy patients and 28 pills for mastectomy with reconstruction patients.
The researchers sought to lower those numbers, and created a departmental change in which they decreased the median number of pills prescribed at discharge from 15 pills to 10 pills for excisional biopsy or lumpectomy patients and from 28 pills to 25 pills for patients who undergo mastectomy with reconstruction. They then examined 100 consecutive patients after a 3-month implementation period to determine whether prescribing numbers had changed and found the surgeons adhered to the prescribing guidelines, which resulted in a statistically significant reduction in median opioid pills prescribed for excisional biopsy or lumpectomy (P less than .01) and mastectomy with reconstruction patients (P less than .01).
“After their departmental plan change, we observed that, as planned, a statistically significant decrease in prescribing practices amongst surgeons was able to be performed, showing that surgeons were able to adhere to these new prescribing practices,” said Dr. Valente.
When they examined the number of pills patients reported they used after surgery, they found excisional biopsy or lumpectomy patients took an average of 1 pill, mastectomy patients took an average of 3 pills, and mastectomy with reconstruction patients took an average of 18 pills. “These were all statistically much less than what was being prescribed even after our purposeful reduction,” said Dr. Valente.
In the study, 40% of patients who underwent breast surgery overall reported that they did not have any postoperative narcotic use at all, with the least narcotic use seen among patients who underwent excisional biopsy or lumpectomy.
“Further directions for opiate reduction can include evaluation of the impact of type and amount of local anesthetic given intraoperatively, and the amount of narcotics used postoperatively … to identify patient factors that contribute to the low narcotic usage postoperatively, and finally, to figure out how to maximize the benefit of adding a formal ERAS [enhanced recovery after surgery] protocol to further reduce patient needs for as many narcotic pills,” said Dr. Valente.
Dr. Valente had no disclosures.
REPORTING FROM ASBS 2019
Outpatient program successfully tackles substance use and chronic pain
MILWAUKEE – An interdisciplinary intensive outpatient treatment program addressing chronic pain and substance use disorder effectively addressed both diagnoses in a military population.
Intensive outpatient programs (IOPs) frequently address these conditions within a biopsychosocial format, but it’s not common for IOPs to have this dual focus on chronic pain and substance use disorder (SUD), said Michael Stockin, MD, speaking in an interview at the scientific meeting of the American Pain Society.
Dr. Stockin said he and his collaborators recognized that, especially among a military population, the two conditions have considerable overlap, so it made sense to integrate behavioral treatment for both conditions in an intensive outpatient program. “Our hypothesis was that if you can use an intensive outpatient program to address substance use disorder, maybe you can actually add a chronic pain curriculum – like a functional restoration program to it.
“As a result of our study, we did find that there were significant differences in worst pain scores as a result of the program. In the people who took both the substance use disorder and chronic pain curriculum, we found significant reductions in total impairment, worst pain, and they also had less … substance use as well,” said Dr. Stockin.
In a quality improvement project, Dr. Stockin and collaborators compared short-term outcomes for patients who received IOP treatment addressing both chronic pain and SUD with those receiving SUD-only IOP.
For those participating in the joint IOP, scores indicating worst pain on the 0-10 numeric rating scale were reduced significantly, from 7.55 to 6.23 (P = .013). Scores on a functional measure of impairment, the Pain Outcomes Questionnaire Short Form (POQ-SF) also dropped significantly, from 84.92 to 63.50 (P = .034). The vitality domain of the POQ-SF also showed that patients had less impairment after participation in the joint IOP, with scores in that domain dropping from 20.17 to 17.25 (P = .024).
Looking at the total cohort, patient scores on the Brief Addiction Monitor (BAM) dropped significantly from baseline to the end of the intervention, indicating reduced substance use (P = .041). Mean scores for participants in the joint IOP were higher at baseline than for those in the SUD-only IOP (1.000 vs. 0.565). However, those participating in the joint IOP had lower mean postintervention BAM scores than the SUD-only cohort (0.071 vs. 0.174).
American veterans experience more severe pain and have a higher prevalence of chronic pain than nonveterans. Similarly, wrote Dr. Stockin, a chronic pain fellow in pain management at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Md., and colleagues in the poster presentation.
The project enrolled a total of 66 patients (10 female and 56 male). Of these, 18 participated in the joint SUD–chronic pain program, and 48 received usual treatment of the SUD-only IOP treatment. The mean overall age was 33.2 years, and 71.2% of participants were white.
Overall, 51 patients (77.3%) of participants had alcohol use disorder. Participants included active duty service members, veterans, and their dependents. Opioid and cannabis use disorders were experienced by a total of eight patients, and seven more patients had diagnoses of alcohol use disorder along with other substance use disorders.
All patients completed the BAM and received urine toxicology and alcohol breath testing at enrollment; drug and alcohol screening was completed at other points during the IOP treatment for both groups as well.
The joint IOP ran 3 full days a week, with a substance use curriculum in the morning and a pain management program in the afternoon; the SUD-only participants had three morning sessions weekly. Both interventions lasted 6 weeks, and Dr. Stockin said he and his colleagues would like to acquire longitudinal data to assess the durability of gains seen from the joint IOP.
The multidisciplinary team running the joint IOP was made up of an addiction/pain medicine physician, a clinical health psychologist, a physical therapist, social workers, and a nurse.
“This project is the first of its kind to find a significant reduction in pain burden while concurrently treating addiction and pain in an outpatient military health care setting,” Dr. Stockin and colleagues wrote in the poster accompanying the presentation.
“We had outcomes in both substance use and chronic pain that were positive, so it suggests that in the military health system, people may actually benefit from treating both chronic pain and substance use disorder concurrently. If you could harmonize those programs, you might be able to get good outcomes for soldiers and their families,” Dr. Stockin said.
Dr. Stockin reported no conflicts of interest. The project was funded by the Defense Health Agency.
MILWAUKEE – An interdisciplinary intensive outpatient treatment program addressing chronic pain and substance use disorder effectively addressed both diagnoses in a military population.
Intensive outpatient programs (IOPs) frequently address these conditions within a biopsychosocial format, but it’s not common for IOPs to have this dual focus on chronic pain and substance use disorder (SUD), said Michael Stockin, MD, speaking in an interview at the scientific meeting of the American Pain Society.
Dr. Stockin said he and his collaborators recognized that, especially among a military population, the two conditions have considerable overlap, so it made sense to integrate behavioral treatment for both conditions in an intensive outpatient program. “Our hypothesis was that if you can use an intensive outpatient program to address substance use disorder, maybe you can actually add a chronic pain curriculum – like a functional restoration program to it.
“As a result of our study, we did find that there were significant differences in worst pain scores as a result of the program. In the people who took both the substance use disorder and chronic pain curriculum, we found significant reductions in total impairment, worst pain, and they also had less … substance use as well,” said Dr. Stockin.
In a quality improvement project, Dr. Stockin and collaborators compared short-term outcomes for patients who received IOP treatment addressing both chronic pain and SUD with those receiving SUD-only IOP.
For those participating in the joint IOP, scores indicating worst pain on the 0-10 numeric rating scale were reduced significantly, from 7.55 to 6.23 (P = .013). Scores on a functional measure of impairment, the Pain Outcomes Questionnaire Short Form (POQ-SF) also dropped significantly, from 84.92 to 63.50 (P = .034). The vitality domain of the POQ-SF also showed that patients had less impairment after participation in the joint IOP, with scores in that domain dropping from 20.17 to 17.25 (P = .024).
Looking at the total cohort, patient scores on the Brief Addiction Monitor (BAM) dropped significantly from baseline to the end of the intervention, indicating reduced substance use (P = .041). Mean scores for participants in the joint IOP were higher at baseline than for those in the SUD-only IOP (1.000 vs. 0.565). However, those participating in the joint IOP had lower mean postintervention BAM scores than the SUD-only cohort (0.071 vs. 0.174).
American veterans experience more severe pain and have a higher prevalence of chronic pain than nonveterans. Similarly, wrote Dr. Stockin, a chronic pain fellow in pain management at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Md., and colleagues in the poster presentation.
The project enrolled a total of 66 patients (10 female and 56 male). Of these, 18 participated in the joint SUD–chronic pain program, and 48 received usual treatment of the SUD-only IOP treatment. The mean overall age was 33.2 years, and 71.2% of participants were white.
Overall, 51 patients (77.3%) of participants had alcohol use disorder. Participants included active duty service members, veterans, and their dependents. Opioid and cannabis use disorders were experienced by a total of eight patients, and seven more patients had diagnoses of alcohol use disorder along with other substance use disorders.
All patients completed the BAM and received urine toxicology and alcohol breath testing at enrollment; drug and alcohol screening was completed at other points during the IOP treatment for both groups as well.
The joint IOP ran 3 full days a week, with a substance use curriculum in the morning and a pain management program in the afternoon; the SUD-only participants had three morning sessions weekly. Both interventions lasted 6 weeks, and Dr. Stockin said he and his colleagues would like to acquire longitudinal data to assess the durability of gains seen from the joint IOP.
The multidisciplinary team running the joint IOP was made up of an addiction/pain medicine physician, a clinical health psychologist, a physical therapist, social workers, and a nurse.
“This project is the first of its kind to find a significant reduction in pain burden while concurrently treating addiction and pain in an outpatient military health care setting,” Dr. Stockin and colleagues wrote in the poster accompanying the presentation.
“We had outcomes in both substance use and chronic pain that were positive, so it suggests that in the military health system, people may actually benefit from treating both chronic pain and substance use disorder concurrently. If you could harmonize those programs, you might be able to get good outcomes for soldiers and their families,” Dr. Stockin said.
Dr. Stockin reported no conflicts of interest. The project was funded by the Defense Health Agency.
MILWAUKEE – An interdisciplinary intensive outpatient treatment program addressing chronic pain and substance use disorder effectively addressed both diagnoses in a military population.
Intensive outpatient programs (IOPs) frequently address these conditions within a biopsychosocial format, but it’s not common for IOPs to have this dual focus on chronic pain and substance use disorder (SUD), said Michael Stockin, MD, speaking in an interview at the scientific meeting of the American Pain Society.
Dr. Stockin said he and his collaborators recognized that, especially among a military population, the two conditions have considerable overlap, so it made sense to integrate behavioral treatment for both conditions in an intensive outpatient program. “Our hypothesis was that if you can use an intensive outpatient program to address substance use disorder, maybe you can actually add a chronic pain curriculum – like a functional restoration program to it.
“As a result of our study, we did find that there were significant differences in worst pain scores as a result of the program. In the people who took both the substance use disorder and chronic pain curriculum, we found significant reductions in total impairment, worst pain, and they also had less … substance use as well,” said Dr. Stockin.
In a quality improvement project, Dr. Stockin and collaborators compared short-term outcomes for patients who received IOP treatment addressing both chronic pain and SUD with those receiving SUD-only IOP.
For those participating in the joint IOP, scores indicating worst pain on the 0-10 numeric rating scale were reduced significantly, from 7.55 to 6.23 (P = .013). Scores on a functional measure of impairment, the Pain Outcomes Questionnaire Short Form (POQ-SF) also dropped significantly, from 84.92 to 63.50 (P = .034). The vitality domain of the POQ-SF also showed that patients had less impairment after participation in the joint IOP, with scores in that domain dropping from 20.17 to 17.25 (P = .024).
Looking at the total cohort, patient scores on the Brief Addiction Monitor (BAM) dropped significantly from baseline to the end of the intervention, indicating reduced substance use (P = .041). Mean scores for participants in the joint IOP were higher at baseline than for those in the SUD-only IOP (1.000 vs. 0.565). However, those participating in the joint IOP had lower mean postintervention BAM scores than the SUD-only cohort (0.071 vs. 0.174).
American veterans experience more severe pain and have a higher prevalence of chronic pain than nonveterans. Similarly, wrote Dr. Stockin, a chronic pain fellow in pain management at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Md., and colleagues in the poster presentation.
The project enrolled a total of 66 patients (10 female and 56 male). Of these, 18 participated in the joint SUD–chronic pain program, and 48 received usual treatment of the SUD-only IOP treatment. The mean overall age was 33.2 years, and 71.2% of participants were white.
Overall, 51 patients (77.3%) of participants had alcohol use disorder. Participants included active duty service members, veterans, and their dependents. Opioid and cannabis use disorders were experienced by a total of eight patients, and seven more patients had diagnoses of alcohol use disorder along with other substance use disorders.
All patients completed the BAM and received urine toxicology and alcohol breath testing at enrollment; drug and alcohol screening was completed at other points during the IOP treatment for both groups as well.
The joint IOP ran 3 full days a week, with a substance use curriculum in the morning and a pain management program in the afternoon; the SUD-only participants had three morning sessions weekly. Both interventions lasted 6 weeks, and Dr. Stockin said he and his colleagues would like to acquire longitudinal data to assess the durability of gains seen from the joint IOP.
The multidisciplinary team running the joint IOP was made up of an addiction/pain medicine physician, a clinical health psychologist, a physical therapist, social workers, and a nurse.
“This project is the first of its kind to find a significant reduction in pain burden while concurrently treating addiction and pain in an outpatient military health care setting,” Dr. Stockin and colleagues wrote in the poster accompanying the presentation.
“We had outcomes in both substance use and chronic pain that were positive, so it suggests that in the military health system, people may actually benefit from treating both chronic pain and substance use disorder concurrently. If you could harmonize those programs, you might be able to get good outcomes for soldiers and their families,” Dr. Stockin said.
Dr. Stockin reported no conflicts of interest. The project was funded by the Defense Health Agency.
REPORTING FROM APS 2019
Key clinical point: An intensive, 6-week joint substance use disorder and chronic pain intensive outpatient program significantly reduced both substance use and pain.
Major finding: Patients had less pain and reduced substance use after completing the program, compared with baseline (P = .013 and .041, respectively).
Study details: A quality improvement project including 66 patients at a military health facility.
Disclosures: The study was sponsored by the Defense Health Agency. Dr. Stockin reported no conflicts of interest.
Click for Credit: Migraine & stroke risk; Aspirin for CV events; more
Here are 5 articles from the May issue of Clinician Reviews (individual articles are valid for one year from date of publication—expiration dates below):
1. Subclinical hypothyroidism boosts immediate risk of heart failure
To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2IK0YiL
Expires January 24, 2020
2. Meta-analysis supports aspirin to reduce cardiovascular events
To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2GJLgSB
Expires January 24, 2020
3. Age of migraine onset may affect stroke risk
To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2ZAJ5YR
Expires January 24, 2020
4. Women with RA have reduced chance of live birth after assisted reproduction treatment
To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2VvKRLF
Expires January 27, 2020
5. New SLE disease activity measure beats SLEDAI-2K
To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2W8SVPA
Expires January 31, 2020
Here are 5 articles from the May issue of Clinician Reviews (individual articles are valid for one year from date of publication—expiration dates below):
1. Subclinical hypothyroidism boosts immediate risk of heart failure
To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2IK0YiL
Expires January 24, 2020
2. Meta-analysis supports aspirin to reduce cardiovascular events
To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2GJLgSB
Expires January 24, 2020
3. Age of migraine onset may affect stroke risk
To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2ZAJ5YR
Expires January 24, 2020
4. Women with RA have reduced chance of live birth after assisted reproduction treatment
To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2VvKRLF
Expires January 27, 2020
5. New SLE disease activity measure beats SLEDAI-2K
To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2W8SVPA
Expires January 31, 2020
Here are 5 articles from the May issue of Clinician Reviews (individual articles are valid for one year from date of publication—expiration dates below):
1. Subclinical hypothyroidism boosts immediate risk of heart failure
To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2IK0YiL
Expires January 24, 2020
2. Meta-analysis supports aspirin to reduce cardiovascular events
To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2GJLgSB
Expires January 24, 2020
3. Age of migraine onset may affect stroke risk
To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2ZAJ5YR
Expires January 24, 2020
4. Women with RA have reduced chance of live birth after assisted reproduction treatment
To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2VvKRLF
Expires January 27, 2020
5. New SLE disease activity measure beats SLEDAI-2K
To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2W8SVPA
Expires January 31, 2020
Medical cannabis relieved pain, decreased opioid use in elderly
results of a recent retrospective chart review suggest. Treatment with medical cannabis improved pain, sleep, anxiety, and neuropathy in patients aged 75 years of age and older, and was associated with reduced use of opioids in about one-third of cases, according to authors of the study, which will be presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
“Our findings are promising and can help fuel further research into medical marijuana as an additional option for this group of people who often have chronic conditions,” said lead investigator Laszlo Mechtler, MD, of Dent Neurologic Institute in Buffalo, N.Y., in a news release. However, additional randomized, placebo-controlled studies are needed to confirm results of this study, Dr. Mechtler added.
The chart review focused on 204 elderly patients who participated in New York State’s medical marijuana program and were followed in a neurologic outpatient setting. The cohort included 129 female and 75 male patients, ranging in age from 75 to 102 years, with a mean age of 81 years. The medical marijuana was taken by mouth as a liquid extract tincture, capsule, or in an electronic vaporizer.
With an average exposure time of 16.8 weeks, 69% of patients experienced symptomatic benefit, according to patient self-report. The most commonly reported benefit was relief of chronic pain in 49%, while improvements in sleep, neuropathy, and anxiety were reported in 18%, 15%, and 10%, respectively. Reductions in opioid pain medication were noted in about one-third of cases, they found.
While 34% of patients had adverse effects on medical marijuana, only 21% reported adverse effects after cannabinoid doses were adjusted, investigators said. Adverse effects led to discontinuation of medical cannabis in seven patients, or 3.4% of the overall cohort. Somnolence, disequilibrium, and gastrointestinal disturbance were the most common adverse effects, occurring in 13%, 7%, and 7% of patients, respectively. Euphoria was reported in 3% of patients.
Among patients who had no reported adverse effects, the most commonly used formulation was a balanced 1:1 tincture of tetrahydrocannabinol to cannabidiol, investigators said.
Further trials could explore optimal dosing of medical cannabis in elderly patients and shed more light on adverse effects such as somnolence and disequilibrium, according to Dr. Mechtler and colleagues.
The study was supported by the Dent Family Foundation.
SOURCE: Bargnes V et al. AAN 2019, Abstract P4.1-014.
results of a recent retrospective chart review suggest. Treatment with medical cannabis improved pain, sleep, anxiety, and neuropathy in patients aged 75 years of age and older, and was associated with reduced use of opioids in about one-third of cases, according to authors of the study, which will be presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
“Our findings are promising and can help fuel further research into medical marijuana as an additional option for this group of people who often have chronic conditions,” said lead investigator Laszlo Mechtler, MD, of Dent Neurologic Institute in Buffalo, N.Y., in a news release. However, additional randomized, placebo-controlled studies are needed to confirm results of this study, Dr. Mechtler added.
The chart review focused on 204 elderly patients who participated in New York State’s medical marijuana program and were followed in a neurologic outpatient setting. The cohort included 129 female and 75 male patients, ranging in age from 75 to 102 years, with a mean age of 81 years. The medical marijuana was taken by mouth as a liquid extract tincture, capsule, or in an electronic vaporizer.
With an average exposure time of 16.8 weeks, 69% of patients experienced symptomatic benefit, according to patient self-report. The most commonly reported benefit was relief of chronic pain in 49%, while improvements in sleep, neuropathy, and anxiety were reported in 18%, 15%, and 10%, respectively. Reductions in opioid pain medication were noted in about one-third of cases, they found.
While 34% of patients had adverse effects on medical marijuana, only 21% reported adverse effects after cannabinoid doses were adjusted, investigators said. Adverse effects led to discontinuation of medical cannabis in seven patients, or 3.4% of the overall cohort. Somnolence, disequilibrium, and gastrointestinal disturbance were the most common adverse effects, occurring in 13%, 7%, and 7% of patients, respectively. Euphoria was reported in 3% of patients.
Among patients who had no reported adverse effects, the most commonly used formulation was a balanced 1:1 tincture of tetrahydrocannabinol to cannabidiol, investigators said.
Further trials could explore optimal dosing of medical cannabis in elderly patients and shed more light on adverse effects such as somnolence and disequilibrium, according to Dr. Mechtler and colleagues.
The study was supported by the Dent Family Foundation.
SOURCE: Bargnes V et al. AAN 2019, Abstract P4.1-014.
results of a recent retrospective chart review suggest. Treatment with medical cannabis improved pain, sleep, anxiety, and neuropathy in patients aged 75 years of age and older, and was associated with reduced use of opioids in about one-third of cases, according to authors of the study, which will be presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
“Our findings are promising and can help fuel further research into medical marijuana as an additional option for this group of people who often have chronic conditions,” said lead investigator Laszlo Mechtler, MD, of Dent Neurologic Institute in Buffalo, N.Y., in a news release. However, additional randomized, placebo-controlled studies are needed to confirm results of this study, Dr. Mechtler added.
The chart review focused on 204 elderly patients who participated in New York State’s medical marijuana program and were followed in a neurologic outpatient setting. The cohort included 129 female and 75 male patients, ranging in age from 75 to 102 years, with a mean age of 81 years. The medical marijuana was taken by mouth as a liquid extract tincture, capsule, or in an electronic vaporizer.
With an average exposure time of 16.8 weeks, 69% of patients experienced symptomatic benefit, according to patient self-report. The most commonly reported benefit was relief of chronic pain in 49%, while improvements in sleep, neuropathy, and anxiety were reported in 18%, 15%, and 10%, respectively. Reductions in opioid pain medication were noted in about one-third of cases, they found.
While 34% of patients had adverse effects on medical marijuana, only 21% reported adverse effects after cannabinoid doses were adjusted, investigators said. Adverse effects led to discontinuation of medical cannabis in seven patients, or 3.4% of the overall cohort. Somnolence, disequilibrium, and gastrointestinal disturbance were the most common adverse effects, occurring in 13%, 7%, and 7% of patients, respectively. Euphoria was reported in 3% of patients.
Among patients who had no reported adverse effects, the most commonly used formulation was a balanced 1:1 tincture of tetrahydrocannabinol to cannabidiol, investigators said.
Further trials could explore optimal dosing of medical cannabis in elderly patients and shed more light on adverse effects such as somnolence and disequilibrium, according to Dr. Mechtler and colleagues.
The study was supported by the Dent Family Foundation.
SOURCE: Bargnes V et al. AAN 2019, Abstract P4.1-014.
FROM AAN 2019
CDC warns against misuse of opioid-prescribing guideline
Officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are warning against the misapplication of the agency’s 2016 guidelines on opioid prescribing, as well as clarifying dosage recommendations for patients starting or stopping pain medications.
In a perspective published in the New England Journal of Medicine on April 24, lead author Deborah Dowell, MD, chief medical officer for the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, conveyed concern that some policies and practices derived from the 2016 CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain are inconsistent with the recommendations and often go beyond their scope.
Misapplication examples include inappropriately applying the guideline to patients in active cancer treatment, patients experiencing acute sickle cell crises, or patients experiencing postsurgical pain, Dr. Dowell wrote.
The guideline offers guidance to clinicians treating chronic pain in adults who are already receiving opioids long-term at high dosages, she noted. It includes advice on maximizing nonopioid treatment, reviewing risks associated with continuing high-dose opioids, and collaborating with patients who agree to taper dosage, among other guidance.
Any application of the guideline’s dosage recommendation that results in hard limits or “cutting off” opioids is also an incorrect use of the recommendations, according to Dr. Dowell.
While the guideline advises clinicians to start opioids at the lowest effective dosage and avoid increasing dosage to 90 morphine milligram equivalents per day or more, that statement does not suggest discontinuation of opioids already prescribed at high dosages, according to the CDC’s clarification.
The guidance also does not apply to patients receiving or starting medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorder.
The commentary comes after a trio of organizations raised concerns that insurers are inappropriately applying the recommendations to active cancer patients when making coverage determinations.
The American Society of Clinical Oncology, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and the American Society of Hematology, raised the issue in a letter to the CDC in February. In response, Dr. Dowell clarified that the recommendations are not intended to deny clinically appropriate opioid therapy to any patients who suffer chronic pain, but rather to ensure that physicians and patients consider all safe and effective treatment options.
In the perspective, Dr. Dowell wrote that the CDC is evaluating the intended and unintended impact of the 2016 opioid-prescribing guideline on clinician and patient outcomes and that the agency is committed to updating the recommendations when new evidence is available.
Officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are warning against the misapplication of the agency’s 2016 guidelines on opioid prescribing, as well as clarifying dosage recommendations for patients starting or stopping pain medications.
In a perspective published in the New England Journal of Medicine on April 24, lead author Deborah Dowell, MD, chief medical officer for the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, conveyed concern that some policies and practices derived from the 2016 CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain are inconsistent with the recommendations and often go beyond their scope.
Misapplication examples include inappropriately applying the guideline to patients in active cancer treatment, patients experiencing acute sickle cell crises, or patients experiencing postsurgical pain, Dr. Dowell wrote.
The guideline offers guidance to clinicians treating chronic pain in adults who are already receiving opioids long-term at high dosages, she noted. It includes advice on maximizing nonopioid treatment, reviewing risks associated with continuing high-dose opioids, and collaborating with patients who agree to taper dosage, among other guidance.
Any application of the guideline’s dosage recommendation that results in hard limits or “cutting off” opioids is also an incorrect use of the recommendations, according to Dr. Dowell.
While the guideline advises clinicians to start opioids at the lowest effective dosage and avoid increasing dosage to 90 morphine milligram equivalents per day or more, that statement does not suggest discontinuation of opioids already prescribed at high dosages, according to the CDC’s clarification.
The guidance also does not apply to patients receiving or starting medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorder.
The commentary comes after a trio of organizations raised concerns that insurers are inappropriately applying the recommendations to active cancer patients when making coverage determinations.
The American Society of Clinical Oncology, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and the American Society of Hematology, raised the issue in a letter to the CDC in February. In response, Dr. Dowell clarified that the recommendations are not intended to deny clinically appropriate opioid therapy to any patients who suffer chronic pain, but rather to ensure that physicians and patients consider all safe and effective treatment options.
In the perspective, Dr. Dowell wrote that the CDC is evaluating the intended and unintended impact of the 2016 opioid-prescribing guideline on clinician and patient outcomes and that the agency is committed to updating the recommendations when new evidence is available.
Officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are warning against the misapplication of the agency’s 2016 guidelines on opioid prescribing, as well as clarifying dosage recommendations for patients starting or stopping pain medications.
In a perspective published in the New England Journal of Medicine on April 24, lead author Deborah Dowell, MD, chief medical officer for the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, conveyed concern that some policies and practices derived from the 2016 CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain are inconsistent with the recommendations and often go beyond their scope.
Misapplication examples include inappropriately applying the guideline to patients in active cancer treatment, patients experiencing acute sickle cell crises, or patients experiencing postsurgical pain, Dr. Dowell wrote.
The guideline offers guidance to clinicians treating chronic pain in adults who are already receiving opioids long-term at high dosages, she noted. It includes advice on maximizing nonopioid treatment, reviewing risks associated with continuing high-dose opioids, and collaborating with patients who agree to taper dosage, among other guidance.
Any application of the guideline’s dosage recommendation that results in hard limits or “cutting off” opioids is also an incorrect use of the recommendations, according to Dr. Dowell.
While the guideline advises clinicians to start opioids at the lowest effective dosage and avoid increasing dosage to 90 morphine milligram equivalents per day or more, that statement does not suggest discontinuation of opioids already prescribed at high dosages, according to the CDC’s clarification.
The guidance also does not apply to patients receiving or starting medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorder.
The commentary comes after a trio of organizations raised concerns that insurers are inappropriately applying the recommendations to active cancer patients when making coverage determinations.
The American Society of Clinical Oncology, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and the American Society of Hematology, raised the issue in a letter to the CDC in February. In response, Dr. Dowell clarified that the recommendations are not intended to deny clinically appropriate opioid therapy to any patients who suffer chronic pain, but rather to ensure that physicians and patients consider all safe and effective treatment options.
In the perspective, Dr. Dowell wrote that the CDC is evaluating the intended and unintended impact of the 2016 opioid-prescribing guideline on clinician and patient outcomes and that the agency is committed to updating the recommendations when new evidence is available.
In chronic pain, catastrophizing contributes to disrupted brain circuitry
MILWAUKEE – When a patient with acute pain tumbles into a chronic pain state, many factors are at play, according to the widely accepted biopsychosocial theory of pain. Emotional, cognitive, and environmental components all contribute to the persistent and recalcitrant symptoms chronic pain patients experience.
Now, modern neuroimaging techniques show how for some, pain signals hijack the brain’s regulatory networks, allowing rumination and catastrophizing to intrude on the exteroception that’s critical to how humans interact with one another and the world. Interrupting catastrophizing with nonpharmacologic techniques yields measurable improvements – and there’s promise that a single treatment session can make a lasting difference.
“Psychosocial phenotypes, such as catastrophizing, are part of a complex biopsychosocial web of contributors to chronic pain. ,” said Robert R. Edwards, PhD, a psychologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital/Harvard Medical School (Boston) Pain Management Center. Dr. Edwards moderated a session focused on catastrophizing at the scientific meeting of the American Pain Society.
Through magnetic resonance imaging techniques that measure functional connectivity, researchers can now see how nodes in the brain form connected networks that are differentially activated.
For example, the brain’s salience network (SLN) responds to stimuli that merit attention, such as evoked or clinical pain, Vitaly Napadow, PhD, said during his presentation. Key nodes in the SLN include the anterior cingulate cortex, the anterior insula, and the anterior temporoparietal junction. One function of the salience network, he said, is to regulate switching between the default mode network (DMN) – an interoceptive network – and the central executive network, usually active in exteroceptive tasks.
“The default mode network has been found to play an important role in pain processing,” Dr. Napadow said. These brain regions are more active in self-referential cognition – thinking about oneself – than when performing external tasks, he said. Consistently, studies have found decreased DMN deactivation in patients with chronic pain; essentially, the constant low hum of pain-focused DMN activity never turns off in a chronic pain state.
For patients with chronic pain, high levels of catastrophizing mean greater impact on functional brain connectivity, said Dr. Napadow, director of the Center for Integrative Pain NeuroImaging at the Martino Center for Biomedical Imaging at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston.
Looking at patients with chronic low back pain, he and his research team looked for connections between the DMN and the insula, which has a central role in pain processing. This connectivity was increased only in patients with high catastrophizing scores, said Dr. Napadow, with increased DMN-insula connectivity associated with increased pain scores only for this subgroup (Pain. 2019 Mar 4. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001541).
“The model that we’re moving toward is that chronic pain leads to a blurring in the canonical network” of brain connectivity, Dr. Napadow said. “The speculation here is that the DMN-SLN linkage could be a sort of neural substrate for a common perception that chronic pain patients have – that their pain becomes part of who they are. Their interoceptive state becomes linked to the pain they are feeling: They are their pain.”
Where to turn with this information, which has large clinical implications? “Catastrophizing is a consistent risk factor for poor pain treatment outcomes, especially when we’re talking about pharmacologic treatments,” Dr. Edwards said. Also, chronic pain patients with the highest catastrophizing scores have the most opioid-related side effects, he said.
“Cognitive-behavioral therapy is potentially the most effective at reducing this risk factor,” said Dr. Edwards, noting that long-term effects were seen at 6 and 12 months post treatment. “These are significant, moderate-sized effects; there is some evidence that effects are largest in those with the highest baseline pain catastrophizing scores.”
“CBT is considered the gold standard, mainly because it’s the best studied” among treatment modalities, psychologist Beth Darnall, PhD, pointed out in her presentation. There’s evidence that other nonpharmacologic interventions can reduce catastrophizing: Psychology-informed yoga practices, physical therapy, and certain medical devices, such as high-frequency transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation units, may all have efficacy against catastrophizing and the downward spiral of chronic pain.
Still, a randomized controlled trial of CBT for pain in patients with fibromyalgia showed that the benefit, measured as reduction in pain interference with daily functioning, was almost twice as high in the high-catastrophizing group, “suggesting the potential utility of this method for patients at greatest risk,” said Dr. Edwards.
“We see a specific pattern of alterations in chronic pain similar to that seen in anxiety disorder; this suggests that some individuals are primed for the experience of pain,” said Dr. Darnall, clinical professor of anesthesiology, perioperative medicine, and pain medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University. “We are not born with the understanding of how to modulate pain and the distress it causes us.”
When she talks to patients, Dr. Darnall said: “I describe pain as being our ‘harm alarm.’ ... I like to describe it to people that ‘you have a very protective nervous system.’ ”
Dr. Darnall and her colleagues reported success with a pilot study of a single 2.5-hour-long session that addressed pain catastrophizing. From a baseline score of 26.1 on the Pain Catastrophizing Scale to a score of 13.8 at week 4, the 57 participants saw a significant decrease in mean scores on the scale (d [effect size] = 1.15).
On the strength of these early findings, Dr. Darnall and her collaborators are embarking on a randomized controlled trial ; the 3-arm comparative effectiveness study will compare a single-session intervention against 8 weeks of CBT or education-only classes for individuals with catastrophizing and chronic pain. The trial is structured to test the hypothesis that the single-session intervention will be noninferior to the full 8 weeks of CBT, Dr. Darnall said.
Building on the importance of avoiding stigmatizing and pejorative terms when talking about pain and catastrophizing, Dr. Darnall said she’s moved away from using the term “catastrophizing” in patient interactions. The one-session intervention is called “Empowered Relief – Train Your Brain Away from Pain.”
There’s a practical promise to a single-session class: Dr. Darnall has taught up to 85 patients at once, she said, adding, “This is a low-cost and scalable intervention.”
Dr. Edwards and Dr. Napadow reported funding from the National Institutes of Health, and they reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Darnall reported funding from the NIH and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. She serves on the scientific advisory board of Axial Healthcare and has several commercial publications about pain.
MILWAUKEE – When a patient with acute pain tumbles into a chronic pain state, many factors are at play, according to the widely accepted biopsychosocial theory of pain. Emotional, cognitive, and environmental components all contribute to the persistent and recalcitrant symptoms chronic pain patients experience.
Now, modern neuroimaging techniques show how for some, pain signals hijack the brain’s regulatory networks, allowing rumination and catastrophizing to intrude on the exteroception that’s critical to how humans interact with one another and the world. Interrupting catastrophizing with nonpharmacologic techniques yields measurable improvements – and there’s promise that a single treatment session can make a lasting difference.
“Psychosocial phenotypes, such as catastrophizing, are part of a complex biopsychosocial web of contributors to chronic pain. ,” said Robert R. Edwards, PhD, a psychologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital/Harvard Medical School (Boston) Pain Management Center. Dr. Edwards moderated a session focused on catastrophizing at the scientific meeting of the American Pain Society.
Through magnetic resonance imaging techniques that measure functional connectivity, researchers can now see how nodes in the brain form connected networks that are differentially activated.
For example, the brain’s salience network (SLN) responds to stimuli that merit attention, such as evoked or clinical pain, Vitaly Napadow, PhD, said during his presentation. Key nodes in the SLN include the anterior cingulate cortex, the anterior insula, and the anterior temporoparietal junction. One function of the salience network, he said, is to regulate switching between the default mode network (DMN) – an interoceptive network – and the central executive network, usually active in exteroceptive tasks.
“The default mode network has been found to play an important role in pain processing,” Dr. Napadow said. These brain regions are more active in self-referential cognition – thinking about oneself – than when performing external tasks, he said. Consistently, studies have found decreased DMN deactivation in patients with chronic pain; essentially, the constant low hum of pain-focused DMN activity never turns off in a chronic pain state.
For patients with chronic pain, high levels of catastrophizing mean greater impact on functional brain connectivity, said Dr. Napadow, director of the Center for Integrative Pain NeuroImaging at the Martino Center for Biomedical Imaging at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston.
Looking at patients with chronic low back pain, he and his research team looked for connections between the DMN and the insula, which has a central role in pain processing. This connectivity was increased only in patients with high catastrophizing scores, said Dr. Napadow, with increased DMN-insula connectivity associated with increased pain scores only for this subgroup (Pain. 2019 Mar 4. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001541).
“The model that we’re moving toward is that chronic pain leads to a blurring in the canonical network” of brain connectivity, Dr. Napadow said. “The speculation here is that the DMN-SLN linkage could be a sort of neural substrate for a common perception that chronic pain patients have – that their pain becomes part of who they are. Their interoceptive state becomes linked to the pain they are feeling: They are their pain.”
Where to turn with this information, which has large clinical implications? “Catastrophizing is a consistent risk factor for poor pain treatment outcomes, especially when we’re talking about pharmacologic treatments,” Dr. Edwards said. Also, chronic pain patients with the highest catastrophizing scores have the most opioid-related side effects, he said.
“Cognitive-behavioral therapy is potentially the most effective at reducing this risk factor,” said Dr. Edwards, noting that long-term effects were seen at 6 and 12 months post treatment. “These are significant, moderate-sized effects; there is some evidence that effects are largest in those with the highest baseline pain catastrophizing scores.”
“CBT is considered the gold standard, mainly because it’s the best studied” among treatment modalities, psychologist Beth Darnall, PhD, pointed out in her presentation. There’s evidence that other nonpharmacologic interventions can reduce catastrophizing: Psychology-informed yoga practices, physical therapy, and certain medical devices, such as high-frequency transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation units, may all have efficacy against catastrophizing and the downward spiral of chronic pain.
Still, a randomized controlled trial of CBT for pain in patients with fibromyalgia showed that the benefit, measured as reduction in pain interference with daily functioning, was almost twice as high in the high-catastrophizing group, “suggesting the potential utility of this method for patients at greatest risk,” said Dr. Edwards.
“We see a specific pattern of alterations in chronic pain similar to that seen in anxiety disorder; this suggests that some individuals are primed for the experience of pain,” said Dr. Darnall, clinical professor of anesthesiology, perioperative medicine, and pain medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University. “We are not born with the understanding of how to modulate pain and the distress it causes us.”
When she talks to patients, Dr. Darnall said: “I describe pain as being our ‘harm alarm.’ ... I like to describe it to people that ‘you have a very protective nervous system.’ ”
Dr. Darnall and her colleagues reported success with a pilot study of a single 2.5-hour-long session that addressed pain catastrophizing. From a baseline score of 26.1 on the Pain Catastrophizing Scale to a score of 13.8 at week 4, the 57 participants saw a significant decrease in mean scores on the scale (d [effect size] = 1.15).
On the strength of these early findings, Dr. Darnall and her collaborators are embarking on a randomized controlled trial ; the 3-arm comparative effectiveness study will compare a single-session intervention against 8 weeks of CBT or education-only classes for individuals with catastrophizing and chronic pain. The trial is structured to test the hypothesis that the single-session intervention will be noninferior to the full 8 weeks of CBT, Dr. Darnall said.
Building on the importance of avoiding stigmatizing and pejorative terms when talking about pain and catastrophizing, Dr. Darnall said she’s moved away from using the term “catastrophizing” in patient interactions. The one-session intervention is called “Empowered Relief – Train Your Brain Away from Pain.”
There’s a practical promise to a single-session class: Dr. Darnall has taught up to 85 patients at once, she said, adding, “This is a low-cost and scalable intervention.”
Dr. Edwards and Dr. Napadow reported funding from the National Institutes of Health, and they reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Darnall reported funding from the NIH and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. She serves on the scientific advisory board of Axial Healthcare and has several commercial publications about pain.
MILWAUKEE – When a patient with acute pain tumbles into a chronic pain state, many factors are at play, according to the widely accepted biopsychosocial theory of pain. Emotional, cognitive, and environmental components all contribute to the persistent and recalcitrant symptoms chronic pain patients experience.
Now, modern neuroimaging techniques show how for some, pain signals hijack the brain’s regulatory networks, allowing rumination and catastrophizing to intrude on the exteroception that’s critical to how humans interact with one another and the world. Interrupting catastrophizing with nonpharmacologic techniques yields measurable improvements – and there’s promise that a single treatment session can make a lasting difference.
“Psychosocial phenotypes, such as catastrophizing, are part of a complex biopsychosocial web of contributors to chronic pain. ,” said Robert R. Edwards, PhD, a psychologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital/Harvard Medical School (Boston) Pain Management Center. Dr. Edwards moderated a session focused on catastrophizing at the scientific meeting of the American Pain Society.
Through magnetic resonance imaging techniques that measure functional connectivity, researchers can now see how nodes in the brain form connected networks that are differentially activated.
For example, the brain’s salience network (SLN) responds to stimuli that merit attention, such as evoked or clinical pain, Vitaly Napadow, PhD, said during his presentation. Key nodes in the SLN include the anterior cingulate cortex, the anterior insula, and the anterior temporoparietal junction. One function of the salience network, he said, is to regulate switching between the default mode network (DMN) – an interoceptive network – and the central executive network, usually active in exteroceptive tasks.
“The default mode network has been found to play an important role in pain processing,” Dr. Napadow said. These brain regions are more active in self-referential cognition – thinking about oneself – than when performing external tasks, he said. Consistently, studies have found decreased DMN deactivation in patients with chronic pain; essentially, the constant low hum of pain-focused DMN activity never turns off in a chronic pain state.
For patients with chronic pain, high levels of catastrophizing mean greater impact on functional brain connectivity, said Dr. Napadow, director of the Center for Integrative Pain NeuroImaging at the Martino Center for Biomedical Imaging at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston.
Looking at patients with chronic low back pain, he and his research team looked for connections between the DMN and the insula, which has a central role in pain processing. This connectivity was increased only in patients with high catastrophizing scores, said Dr. Napadow, with increased DMN-insula connectivity associated with increased pain scores only for this subgroup (Pain. 2019 Mar 4. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001541).
“The model that we’re moving toward is that chronic pain leads to a blurring in the canonical network” of brain connectivity, Dr. Napadow said. “The speculation here is that the DMN-SLN linkage could be a sort of neural substrate for a common perception that chronic pain patients have – that their pain becomes part of who they are. Their interoceptive state becomes linked to the pain they are feeling: They are their pain.”
Where to turn with this information, which has large clinical implications? “Catastrophizing is a consistent risk factor for poor pain treatment outcomes, especially when we’re talking about pharmacologic treatments,” Dr. Edwards said. Also, chronic pain patients with the highest catastrophizing scores have the most opioid-related side effects, he said.
“Cognitive-behavioral therapy is potentially the most effective at reducing this risk factor,” said Dr. Edwards, noting that long-term effects were seen at 6 and 12 months post treatment. “These are significant, moderate-sized effects; there is some evidence that effects are largest in those with the highest baseline pain catastrophizing scores.”
“CBT is considered the gold standard, mainly because it’s the best studied” among treatment modalities, psychologist Beth Darnall, PhD, pointed out in her presentation. There’s evidence that other nonpharmacologic interventions can reduce catastrophizing: Psychology-informed yoga practices, physical therapy, and certain medical devices, such as high-frequency transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation units, may all have efficacy against catastrophizing and the downward spiral of chronic pain.
Still, a randomized controlled trial of CBT for pain in patients with fibromyalgia showed that the benefit, measured as reduction in pain interference with daily functioning, was almost twice as high in the high-catastrophizing group, “suggesting the potential utility of this method for patients at greatest risk,” said Dr. Edwards.
“We see a specific pattern of alterations in chronic pain similar to that seen in anxiety disorder; this suggests that some individuals are primed for the experience of pain,” said Dr. Darnall, clinical professor of anesthesiology, perioperative medicine, and pain medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University. “We are not born with the understanding of how to modulate pain and the distress it causes us.”
When she talks to patients, Dr. Darnall said: “I describe pain as being our ‘harm alarm.’ ... I like to describe it to people that ‘you have a very protective nervous system.’ ”
Dr. Darnall and her colleagues reported success with a pilot study of a single 2.5-hour-long session that addressed pain catastrophizing. From a baseline score of 26.1 on the Pain Catastrophizing Scale to a score of 13.8 at week 4, the 57 participants saw a significant decrease in mean scores on the scale (d [effect size] = 1.15).
On the strength of these early findings, Dr. Darnall and her collaborators are embarking on a randomized controlled trial ; the 3-arm comparative effectiveness study will compare a single-session intervention against 8 weeks of CBT or education-only classes for individuals with catastrophizing and chronic pain. The trial is structured to test the hypothesis that the single-session intervention will be noninferior to the full 8 weeks of CBT, Dr. Darnall said.
Building on the importance of avoiding stigmatizing and pejorative terms when talking about pain and catastrophizing, Dr. Darnall said she’s moved away from using the term “catastrophizing” in patient interactions. The one-session intervention is called “Empowered Relief – Train Your Brain Away from Pain.”
There’s a practical promise to a single-session class: Dr. Darnall has taught up to 85 patients at once, she said, adding, “This is a low-cost and scalable intervention.”
Dr. Edwards and Dr. Napadow reported funding from the National Institutes of Health, and they reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Darnall reported funding from the NIH and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. She serves on the scientific advisory board of Axial Healthcare and has several commercial publications about pain.
REPORTING FROM APS 2019
In pain treatment, racial bias common among physician trainees
MILWAUKEE – More than 40% of white physician trainees demonstrated racial bias in medical decision making about treatment of low back pain, as did 31% of nonwhite trainees. However, just 6% of white residents and fellows, and 10% of the nonwhite residents and fellows, reported that patient race had factored into their treatment decisions in a virtual patient task.
The 444 medical residents and fellows who participated viewed video vignettes presenting 12 virtual patients who presented with low back pain, wrote Alexis Grant of Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis and her colleagues. In a poster presentation at the scientific meeting of the American Pain Society, Ms. Grant, a doctoral student in clinical psychology, and her collaborators explained that participants agreed to view a series of 12 videos of virtual patients.
The videos presented male and female virtual patients who were black or white and who had jobs associated with low or high socioeconomic status (SES). Information in text vignettes accompanying the videos included occupation, pain etiology, physical exam findings, and pain intensity by self-report.
After viewing the videos and reading the vignettes, participating clinicians were asked to use a 0-100 visual analog scale to report their likelihood of referring patients to a pain specialist or to physical therapy and of recommending opioid or nonopioid analgesia.
“Next, they rated the degree to which they considered different sources of patient information when making treatment decision,” Ms. Grant and her coauthors wrote. Statistical analysis “examined the extent to which providers demonstrated statistically reliable treatment differences across patient race and SES.” These findings were compared with how clinicians reported they used patient race and SES in decision making.
Demonstrated race-based decision making occurred for 41% of white and 31% of nonwhite clinicians. About two-thirds of providers (67.3%) were white, and of the remainder, 26.3% were Asian, 4.4% were classified as “other,” and 2.1% were black. The respondents were aged a mean 29.7 years, and were 42.3% female.
In addition, Ms. Grant and her coauthors estimated provider SES by asking about parental SES, dividing respondents into low (less than $38,000), medium ($38,000-$75,000), and high (greater than $75,000) SES categories.
and similar across levels of provider SES, at 41%, 43%, and 38% for low, medium, and high SES residents and fellows, respectively. However, the disconnect between reported and demonstrated bias that was seen with race was not seen with SES bias, with 43%-48% of providers in each SES group reporting that they had factored patient SES into their treatment decision making.
“These results suggest that providers have low awareness of making different pain treatment decisions” for black patients, compared with decision making for white patients, Ms. Grant and her colleagues wrote. “Decision-making awareness did not substantially differ across provider race or SES.” She and her collaborators called for more research into whether raising awareness about demonstrated racial bias in decision making can improve both racial and socioeconomic gaps in pain care.
The authors reported funding from the National Institutes of Health. They reported no conflicts of interest.
MILWAUKEE – More than 40% of white physician trainees demonstrated racial bias in medical decision making about treatment of low back pain, as did 31% of nonwhite trainees. However, just 6% of white residents and fellows, and 10% of the nonwhite residents and fellows, reported that patient race had factored into their treatment decisions in a virtual patient task.
The 444 medical residents and fellows who participated viewed video vignettes presenting 12 virtual patients who presented with low back pain, wrote Alexis Grant of Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis and her colleagues. In a poster presentation at the scientific meeting of the American Pain Society, Ms. Grant, a doctoral student in clinical psychology, and her collaborators explained that participants agreed to view a series of 12 videos of virtual patients.
The videos presented male and female virtual patients who were black or white and who had jobs associated with low or high socioeconomic status (SES). Information in text vignettes accompanying the videos included occupation, pain etiology, physical exam findings, and pain intensity by self-report.
After viewing the videos and reading the vignettes, participating clinicians were asked to use a 0-100 visual analog scale to report their likelihood of referring patients to a pain specialist or to physical therapy and of recommending opioid or nonopioid analgesia.
“Next, they rated the degree to which they considered different sources of patient information when making treatment decision,” Ms. Grant and her coauthors wrote. Statistical analysis “examined the extent to which providers demonstrated statistically reliable treatment differences across patient race and SES.” These findings were compared with how clinicians reported they used patient race and SES in decision making.
Demonstrated race-based decision making occurred for 41% of white and 31% of nonwhite clinicians. About two-thirds of providers (67.3%) were white, and of the remainder, 26.3% were Asian, 4.4% were classified as “other,” and 2.1% were black. The respondents were aged a mean 29.7 years, and were 42.3% female.
In addition, Ms. Grant and her coauthors estimated provider SES by asking about parental SES, dividing respondents into low (less than $38,000), medium ($38,000-$75,000), and high (greater than $75,000) SES categories.
and similar across levels of provider SES, at 41%, 43%, and 38% for low, medium, and high SES residents and fellows, respectively. However, the disconnect between reported and demonstrated bias that was seen with race was not seen with SES bias, with 43%-48% of providers in each SES group reporting that they had factored patient SES into their treatment decision making.
“These results suggest that providers have low awareness of making different pain treatment decisions” for black patients, compared with decision making for white patients, Ms. Grant and her colleagues wrote. “Decision-making awareness did not substantially differ across provider race or SES.” She and her collaborators called for more research into whether raising awareness about demonstrated racial bias in decision making can improve both racial and socioeconomic gaps in pain care.
The authors reported funding from the National Institutes of Health. They reported no conflicts of interest.
MILWAUKEE – More than 40% of white physician trainees demonstrated racial bias in medical decision making about treatment of low back pain, as did 31% of nonwhite trainees. However, just 6% of white residents and fellows, and 10% of the nonwhite residents and fellows, reported that patient race had factored into their treatment decisions in a virtual patient task.
The 444 medical residents and fellows who participated viewed video vignettes presenting 12 virtual patients who presented with low back pain, wrote Alexis Grant of Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis and her colleagues. In a poster presentation at the scientific meeting of the American Pain Society, Ms. Grant, a doctoral student in clinical psychology, and her collaborators explained that participants agreed to view a series of 12 videos of virtual patients.
The videos presented male and female virtual patients who were black or white and who had jobs associated with low or high socioeconomic status (SES). Information in text vignettes accompanying the videos included occupation, pain etiology, physical exam findings, and pain intensity by self-report.
After viewing the videos and reading the vignettes, participating clinicians were asked to use a 0-100 visual analog scale to report their likelihood of referring patients to a pain specialist or to physical therapy and of recommending opioid or nonopioid analgesia.
“Next, they rated the degree to which they considered different sources of patient information when making treatment decision,” Ms. Grant and her coauthors wrote. Statistical analysis “examined the extent to which providers demonstrated statistically reliable treatment differences across patient race and SES.” These findings were compared with how clinicians reported they used patient race and SES in decision making.
Demonstrated race-based decision making occurred for 41% of white and 31% of nonwhite clinicians. About two-thirds of providers (67.3%) were white, and of the remainder, 26.3% were Asian, 4.4% were classified as “other,” and 2.1% were black. The respondents were aged a mean 29.7 years, and were 42.3% female.
In addition, Ms. Grant and her coauthors estimated provider SES by asking about parental SES, dividing respondents into low (less than $38,000), medium ($38,000-$75,000), and high (greater than $75,000) SES categories.
and similar across levels of provider SES, at 41%, 43%, and 38% for low, medium, and high SES residents and fellows, respectively. However, the disconnect between reported and demonstrated bias that was seen with race was not seen with SES bias, with 43%-48% of providers in each SES group reporting that they had factored patient SES into their treatment decision making.
“These results suggest that providers have low awareness of making different pain treatment decisions” for black patients, compared with decision making for white patients, Ms. Grant and her colleagues wrote. “Decision-making awareness did not substantially differ across provider race or SES.” She and her collaborators called for more research into whether raising awareness about demonstrated racial bias in decision making can improve both racial and socioeconomic gaps in pain care.
The authors reported funding from the National Institutes of Health. They reported no conflicts of interest.
REPORTING FROM APS 2019
Alvogen issues recall for mislabeled fentanyl patches
Alvogen has issued a voluntary recall of two lots of its Fentanyl Transdermal System 12-mcg/h transdermal patches because of a product mislabeling, according to the Food and Drug Administration.
The recall was issued because a small number of cartons labeled as containing 12-mcg/h patches contained 50-mcg/h patches. The 50-mcg/h patches were labeled as such within the package.
Application of a 50-mcg/h patch instead of a 12-mcg/h patch could result in serious, life-threatening, or fatal respiratory depression. Groups at potential risk for such adverse events include first-time users of the patch, children, and the elderly. No reports of serious adverse events have yet been reported.
“Pharmacies are requested not to dispense any product subject to this recall,” the FDA said in a press release. Patients who “have product subject to this recall should immediately remove any patch currently in use and contact their health care provider. Patients with unused product should return it to point of purchase for replacement.”
Find more information on the recall at the FDA website.
Alvogen has issued a voluntary recall of two lots of its Fentanyl Transdermal System 12-mcg/h transdermal patches because of a product mislabeling, according to the Food and Drug Administration.
The recall was issued because a small number of cartons labeled as containing 12-mcg/h patches contained 50-mcg/h patches. The 50-mcg/h patches were labeled as such within the package.
Application of a 50-mcg/h patch instead of a 12-mcg/h patch could result in serious, life-threatening, or fatal respiratory depression. Groups at potential risk for such adverse events include first-time users of the patch, children, and the elderly. No reports of serious adverse events have yet been reported.
“Pharmacies are requested not to dispense any product subject to this recall,” the FDA said in a press release. Patients who “have product subject to this recall should immediately remove any patch currently in use and contact their health care provider. Patients with unused product should return it to point of purchase for replacement.”
Find more information on the recall at the FDA website.
Alvogen has issued a voluntary recall of two lots of its Fentanyl Transdermal System 12-mcg/h transdermal patches because of a product mislabeling, according to the Food and Drug Administration.
The recall was issued because a small number of cartons labeled as containing 12-mcg/h patches contained 50-mcg/h patches. The 50-mcg/h patches were labeled as such within the package.
Application of a 50-mcg/h patch instead of a 12-mcg/h patch could result in serious, life-threatening, or fatal respiratory depression. Groups at potential risk for such adverse events include first-time users of the patch, children, and the elderly. No reports of serious adverse events have yet been reported.
“Pharmacies are requested not to dispense any product subject to this recall,” the FDA said in a press release. Patients who “have product subject to this recall should immediately remove any patch currently in use and contact their health care provider. Patients with unused product should return it to point of purchase for replacement.”
Find more information on the recall at the FDA website.
What is medical marijuana actually useful for?
PHILADELPHIA – , some insights into adverse effects, and “a lot of the Wild West,” Ellie Grossman, MD, MPH, said here at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.
The opioid-sparing effects of medical marijuana have been highlighted in recent reports suggesting that cannabis users may use less opioids, and that states with medical marijuana laws have seen drops in opioid overdose mortality, Dr. Grossman said.
“That’s kind of a story on pain and cannabinoids, and that’s really the biggest story there is in terms of medical evidence and effectiveness for this agent,” said Dr. Grossman, an instructor at Harvard Medical School and Primary Care Lead for Behavioral Health Integration, Cambridge Health Alliance, Somerville, Mass.
However, being the top story in medical marijuana may not be a very high bar in 2019, given current issues with research in this area, including inconsistencies in medical marijuana formulations, relatively small numbers of patients enrolled in studies, and meta-analyses that have produced equivocal results.
“Unfortunately, this is an area where there’s a lot of, shall I say, ‘squishiness’ in the data, through no fault of the researchers involved – it’s just an area that’s really hard to study,” Dr. Goodman said in her update on medical marijuana use at the meeting.
Most studies of cannabinoids for chronic pain have compared these agents to placebo, rather than the long list of other medications that might be used to treat pain, Dr. Grossman said.
There are several meta-analyses available, including a recently published Cochrane review in which authors concluded that, for neuropathic pain, the potential benefits of cannabis-based medicines may outweigh their potential harms.
“The upshot here is that there may be some evidence for neuropathic pain, but the evidence is generally of poor quality and kind of mixed,” said Dr. Grossman.
State-level medical cannabis laws were linked to significantly lower opioid overdose mortality rates in a 2014 study (JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174[10]:1668-73). In more recent studies, states with medical cannabis laws were found to have lower Medicare Part D opioid-prescribing rates, and in another study, legalization of medical marijuana was linked to lower rates of chronic and high-risk opioid use.
“It certainly seems like maybe we as prescribers are prescribing [fewer] opioids if there’s medical cannabis around,” Dr. Grossman said. “What this means for our patients in the short term and long term, we don’t totally know. But clearly, fewer opioid overdoses is a way better thing than more, so there could be something here.”
The cannabinoids approved by the Food and Drug Administration include nabilone (Cesamet) and dronabinol (Marinol), both synthetic cannabinoids indicated for cancer chemotherapy–related nausea and vomiting, along with cannabidiol (Epidiolex), just approved in June 2018 for treatment of some rare pediatric refractory epilepsy syndromes, Dr. Grossman said.
For chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, evidence suggests oral cannabinoids are more effective than placebo, but there’s mixed evidence as to whether they are better than other antiemetics, Dr. Grossman said, while in terms of spasticity related to multiple sclerosis, research has shown small improvements in patient-reported symptoms.
Long-term adverse event data specific to medical marijuana are scant, with much of the evidence coming from studies of recreational marijuana users, Dr. Grossman said.
Those long-term effects include increased risk of pulmonary effects such as cough, wheeze, and phlegm that improve with discontinuation; case reports of unintentional pediatric ingestions; and lower neonatal birth weight, which should be discussed with women of reproductive age who are using or considering medical marijuana, Dr. Grossman said.
Motor vehicle accidents, development of psychiatric symptoms, and psychosis relapse also have been linked to use, she said.
Some real-world adverse event data specific to medical marijuana data are available through the Minnesota medical cannabis program. They found 16% of surveyed users reported an adverse event within the first 4 months, including dry mouth, fatigue, mental clouding, and drowsiness, Dr. Grossman told attendees.
Dr. Grossman reported that she has no relationship with entities producing, marketing, reselling, or distributing health care goods or services consumed by, or used on, patients.
SOURCE: Grossman E. ACP 2019, Presentation MTP 010.
PHILADELPHIA – , some insights into adverse effects, and “a lot of the Wild West,” Ellie Grossman, MD, MPH, said here at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.
The opioid-sparing effects of medical marijuana have been highlighted in recent reports suggesting that cannabis users may use less opioids, and that states with medical marijuana laws have seen drops in opioid overdose mortality, Dr. Grossman said.
“That’s kind of a story on pain and cannabinoids, and that’s really the biggest story there is in terms of medical evidence and effectiveness for this agent,” said Dr. Grossman, an instructor at Harvard Medical School and Primary Care Lead for Behavioral Health Integration, Cambridge Health Alliance, Somerville, Mass.
However, being the top story in medical marijuana may not be a very high bar in 2019, given current issues with research in this area, including inconsistencies in medical marijuana formulations, relatively small numbers of patients enrolled in studies, and meta-analyses that have produced equivocal results.
“Unfortunately, this is an area where there’s a lot of, shall I say, ‘squishiness’ in the data, through no fault of the researchers involved – it’s just an area that’s really hard to study,” Dr. Goodman said in her update on medical marijuana use at the meeting.
Most studies of cannabinoids for chronic pain have compared these agents to placebo, rather than the long list of other medications that might be used to treat pain, Dr. Grossman said.
There are several meta-analyses available, including a recently published Cochrane review in which authors concluded that, for neuropathic pain, the potential benefits of cannabis-based medicines may outweigh their potential harms.
“The upshot here is that there may be some evidence for neuropathic pain, but the evidence is generally of poor quality and kind of mixed,” said Dr. Grossman.
State-level medical cannabis laws were linked to significantly lower opioid overdose mortality rates in a 2014 study (JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174[10]:1668-73). In more recent studies, states with medical cannabis laws were found to have lower Medicare Part D opioid-prescribing rates, and in another study, legalization of medical marijuana was linked to lower rates of chronic and high-risk opioid use.
“It certainly seems like maybe we as prescribers are prescribing [fewer] opioids if there’s medical cannabis around,” Dr. Grossman said. “What this means for our patients in the short term and long term, we don’t totally know. But clearly, fewer opioid overdoses is a way better thing than more, so there could be something here.”
The cannabinoids approved by the Food and Drug Administration include nabilone (Cesamet) and dronabinol (Marinol), both synthetic cannabinoids indicated for cancer chemotherapy–related nausea and vomiting, along with cannabidiol (Epidiolex), just approved in June 2018 for treatment of some rare pediatric refractory epilepsy syndromes, Dr. Grossman said.
For chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, evidence suggests oral cannabinoids are more effective than placebo, but there’s mixed evidence as to whether they are better than other antiemetics, Dr. Grossman said, while in terms of spasticity related to multiple sclerosis, research has shown small improvements in patient-reported symptoms.
Long-term adverse event data specific to medical marijuana are scant, with much of the evidence coming from studies of recreational marijuana users, Dr. Grossman said.
Those long-term effects include increased risk of pulmonary effects such as cough, wheeze, and phlegm that improve with discontinuation; case reports of unintentional pediatric ingestions; and lower neonatal birth weight, which should be discussed with women of reproductive age who are using or considering medical marijuana, Dr. Grossman said.
Motor vehicle accidents, development of psychiatric symptoms, and psychosis relapse also have been linked to use, she said.
Some real-world adverse event data specific to medical marijuana data are available through the Minnesota medical cannabis program. They found 16% of surveyed users reported an adverse event within the first 4 months, including dry mouth, fatigue, mental clouding, and drowsiness, Dr. Grossman told attendees.
Dr. Grossman reported that she has no relationship with entities producing, marketing, reselling, or distributing health care goods or services consumed by, or used on, patients.
SOURCE: Grossman E. ACP 2019, Presentation MTP 010.
PHILADELPHIA – , some insights into adverse effects, and “a lot of the Wild West,” Ellie Grossman, MD, MPH, said here at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.
The opioid-sparing effects of medical marijuana have been highlighted in recent reports suggesting that cannabis users may use less opioids, and that states with medical marijuana laws have seen drops in opioid overdose mortality, Dr. Grossman said.
“That’s kind of a story on pain and cannabinoids, and that’s really the biggest story there is in terms of medical evidence and effectiveness for this agent,” said Dr. Grossman, an instructor at Harvard Medical School and Primary Care Lead for Behavioral Health Integration, Cambridge Health Alliance, Somerville, Mass.
However, being the top story in medical marijuana may not be a very high bar in 2019, given current issues with research in this area, including inconsistencies in medical marijuana formulations, relatively small numbers of patients enrolled in studies, and meta-analyses that have produced equivocal results.
“Unfortunately, this is an area where there’s a lot of, shall I say, ‘squishiness’ in the data, through no fault of the researchers involved – it’s just an area that’s really hard to study,” Dr. Goodman said in her update on medical marijuana use at the meeting.
Most studies of cannabinoids for chronic pain have compared these agents to placebo, rather than the long list of other medications that might be used to treat pain, Dr. Grossman said.
There are several meta-analyses available, including a recently published Cochrane review in which authors concluded that, for neuropathic pain, the potential benefits of cannabis-based medicines may outweigh their potential harms.
“The upshot here is that there may be some evidence for neuropathic pain, but the evidence is generally of poor quality and kind of mixed,” said Dr. Grossman.
State-level medical cannabis laws were linked to significantly lower opioid overdose mortality rates in a 2014 study (JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174[10]:1668-73). In more recent studies, states with medical cannabis laws were found to have lower Medicare Part D opioid-prescribing rates, and in another study, legalization of medical marijuana was linked to lower rates of chronic and high-risk opioid use.
“It certainly seems like maybe we as prescribers are prescribing [fewer] opioids if there’s medical cannabis around,” Dr. Grossman said. “What this means for our patients in the short term and long term, we don’t totally know. But clearly, fewer opioid overdoses is a way better thing than more, so there could be something here.”
The cannabinoids approved by the Food and Drug Administration include nabilone (Cesamet) and dronabinol (Marinol), both synthetic cannabinoids indicated for cancer chemotherapy–related nausea and vomiting, along with cannabidiol (Epidiolex), just approved in June 2018 for treatment of some rare pediatric refractory epilepsy syndromes, Dr. Grossman said.
For chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, evidence suggests oral cannabinoids are more effective than placebo, but there’s mixed evidence as to whether they are better than other antiemetics, Dr. Grossman said, while in terms of spasticity related to multiple sclerosis, research has shown small improvements in patient-reported symptoms.
Long-term adverse event data specific to medical marijuana are scant, with much of the evidence coming from studies of recreational marijuana users, Dr. Grossman said.
Those long-term effects include increased risk of pulmonary effects such as cough, wheeze, and phlegm that improve with discontinuation; case reports of unintentional pediatric ingestions; and lower neonatal birth weight, which should be discussed with women of reproductive age who are using or considering medical marijuana, Dr. Grossman said.
Motor vehicle accidents, development of psychiatric symptoms, and psychosis relapse also have been linked to use, she said.
Some real-world adverse event data specific to medical marijuana data are available through the Minnesota medical cannabis program. They found 16% of surveyed users reported an adverse event within the first 4 months, including dry mouth, fatigue, mental clouding, and drowsiness, Dr. Grossman told attendees.
Dr. Grossman reported that she has no relationship with entities producing, marketing, reselling, or distributing health care goods or services consumed by, or used on, patients.
SOURCE: Grossman E. ACP 2019, Presentation MTP 010.
AT INTERNAL MEDICINE 2019
No clear winner for treating neuropathic pain
PHILADELPHIA – Nearly 7%-10% of the general population experiences neuropathic pain, but studies on treatments have not found a clear winner for reducing this “burning or electriclike pain,” explained Raymond Price, MD, during a presentation.
“It isn’t that exciting,” said Dr. Price, associate professor of neurology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, in reference to his review of level 1-2 evidence for treatment of neuropathic pain that was presented in a study published in JAMA (2015 Nov 24;314[20]:2172-81). a few years ago. “On a scale of 1 to 10, you can reduce their pain scale by 1-2 points more than placebo,” he told his audience at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.
There are very limited head-to-head data as to which one is actually better,” he explained.
Given the absence of robust head-to-head trial data, Dr. Price tends to start a lot of patients on old, cheap medications like nortriptyline.
While there aren’t many head-to-head trials to guide treatment choice, the results of one prospective, randomized, open-label study of 333 patients with cryptogenic sensory polyneuropathy was presented by Barohn and colleagues at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, he said. In that study, somewhat higher efficacy rates were seen with duloxetine, a serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor, and nortriptyline, a tricyclic antidepressant, compared with pregabalin, Dr. Price noted. Duloxetine and nortriptyline also had slightly better tolerability, as evidenced by a lower quit rate, compared with pregabalin, he added.
There was also a systematic review and meta-analysis (Lancet Neurol. 2015 Feb; 14[2]:162-73) conducted that determined the number needed to treat for neuropathic pain treatments, Dr. Price noted. In that paper, tricyclic antidepressants had a number needed to treat of 3.6, comparing favorably to 7.7 for pregabalin, 7.2 for gabapentin, and 6.4 for serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors, mainly including duloxetine, said Dr. Price.
Regardless of the cause of neuropathic pain, the same general approach to treatment is taken, though most of the evidence comes from studies of patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy or postherpetic neuralgia, he added.
For these patients, an adequate trial of a neuropathic pain treatment should be 6-12 weeks, reflecting the length of the intervention needed to demonstrate the efficacy of these agents, he said.
If that first drug doesn’t work, another can be tried, or multiple drugs can be tried together to see if the patient’s condition improves, he said.
Dr. Price reported no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Price R Internal Medicine 2019, Presentation MSFM 002.
PHILADELPHIA – Nearly 7%-10% of the general population experiences neuropathic pain, but studies on treatments have not found a clear winner for reducing this “burning or electriclike pain,” explained Raymond Price, MD, during a presentation.
“It isn’t that exciting,” said Dr. Price, associate professor of neurology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, in reference to his review of level 1-2 evidence for treatment of neuropathic pain that was presented in a study published in JAMA (2015 Nov 24;314[20]:2172-81). a few years ago. “On a scale of 1 to 10, you can reduce their pain scale by 1-2 points more than placebo,” he told his audience at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.
There are very limited head-to-head data as to which one is actually better,” he explained.
Given the absence of robust head-to-head trial data, Dr. Price tends to start a lot of patients on old, cheap medications like nortriptyline.
While there aren’t many head-to-head trials to guide treatment choice, the results of one prospective, randomized, open-label study of 333 patients with cryptogenic sensory polyneuropathy was presented by Barohn and colleagues at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, he said. In that study, somewhat higher efficacy rates were seen with duloxetine, a serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor, and nortriptyline, a tricyclic antidepressant, compared with pregabalin, Dr. Price noted. Duloxetine and nortriptyline also had slightly better tolerability, as evidenced by a lower quit rate, compared with pregabalin, he added.
There was also a systematic review and meta-analysis (Lancet Neurol. 2015 Feb; 14[2]:162-73) conducted that determined the number needed to treat for neuropathic pain treatments, Dr. Price noted. In that paper, tricyclic antidepressants had a number needed to treat of 3.6, comparing favorably to 7.7 for pregabalin, 7.2 for gabapentin, and 6.4 for serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors, mainly including duloxetine, said Dr. Price.
Regardless of the cause of neuropathic pain, the same general approach to treatment is taken, though most of the evidence comes from studies of patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy or postherpetic neuralgia, he added.
For these patients, an adequate trial of a neuropathic pain treatment should be 6-12 weeks, reflecting the length of the intervention needed to demonstrate the efficacy of these agents, he said.
If that first drug doesn’t work, another can be tried, or multiple drugs can be tried together to see if the patient’s condition improves, he said.
Dr. Price reported no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Price R Internal Medicine 2019, Presentation MSFM 002.
PHILADELPHIA – Nearly 7%-10% of the general population experiences neuropathic pain, but studies on treatments have not found a clear winner for reducing this “burning or electriclike pain,” explained Raymond Price, MD, during a presentation.
“It isn’t that exciting,” said Dr. Price, associate professor of neurology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, in reference to his review of level 1-2 evidence for treatment of neuropathic pain that was presented in a study published in JAMA (2015 Nov 24;314[20]:2172-81). a few years ago. “On a scale of 1 to 10, you can reduce their pain scale by 1-2 points more than placebo,” he told his audience at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.
There are very limited head-to-head data as to which one is actually better,” he explained.
Given the absence of robust head-to-head trial data, Dr. Price tends to start a lot of patients on old, cheap medications like nortriptyline.
While there aren’t many head-to-head trials to guide treatment choice, the results of one prospective, randomized, open-label study of 333 patients with cryptogenic sensory polyneuropathy was presented by Barohn and colleagues at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, he said. In that study, somewhat higher efficacy rates were seen with duloxetine, a serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor, and nortriptyline, a tricyclic antidepressant, compared with pregabalin, Dr. Price noted. Duloxetine and nortriptyline also had slightly better tolerability, as evidenced by a lower quit rate, compared with pregabalin, he added.
There was also a systematic review and meta-analysis (Lancet Neurol. 2015 Feb; 14[2]:162-73) conducted that determined the number needed to treat for neuropathic pain treatments, Dr. Price noted. In that paper, tricyclic antidepressants had a number needed to treat of 3.6, comparing favorably to 7.7 for pregabalin, 7.2 for gabapentin, and 6.4 for serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors, mainly including duloxetine, said Dr. Price.
Regardless of the cause of neuropathic pain, the same general approach to treatment is taken, though most of the evidence comes from studies of patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy or postherpetic neuralgia, he added.
For these patients, an adequate trial of a neuropathic pain treatment should be 6-12 weeks, reflecting the length of the intervention needed to demonstrate the efficacy of these agents, he said.
If that first drug doesn’t work, another can be tried, or multiple drugs can be tried together to see if the patient’s condition improves, he said.
Dr. Price reported no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Price R Internal Medicine 2019, Presentation MSFM 002.
AT INTERNAL MEDICINE 2019