对因继续和停止长期阿片类药物治疗而面临伤害风险的患者进行管理:一项定性研究,为弥补临床实践指南的不足提供信息。

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Pain Practice Pub Date : 2024-11-18 DOI:10.1111/papr.13440
Christine Timko, Mai Chee Lor, Stefan Kertesz, Kurt Kroenke, Kathryn Macia, Andrea Nevedal, Katherine J Hoggatt
{"title":"对因继续和停止长期阿片类药物治疗而面临伤害风险的患者进行管理:一项定性研究,为弥补临床实践指南的不足提供信息。","authors":"Christine Timko, Mai Chee Lor, Stefan Kertesz, Kurt Kroenke, Kathryn Macia, Andrea Nevedal, Katherine J Hoggatt","doi":"10.1111/papr.13440","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Although long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) for chronic pain has declined, it remains common in the U.S. Providers do not have clinical practice guidelines for vulnerable LTOT patients, in whom both LTOT continuation and tapering to discontinuation pose risks of harm and in whom opioid use disorder (OUD) is absent.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>To begin to meet the gap in guidelines, the study used a multiple case study approach. Five cases were constructed to systematically vary key elements of LTOT continuation and discontinuation harms among patients reporting LTOT's lack of efficacy (experience of pain and poor function). For each, treatment approaches were collected from 28 opioid safety experts identified through their participation in a national policy panel (19 were physicians) and analyzed using template analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For patients receiving LTOT with harms of continuation and discontinuation, experts recommended attempting a slow taper (even with a prior unsuccessful taper, possibly with adjuvant medications to manage withdrawal) and not maintaining opioid therapy. Experts considered switching to buprenorphine, especially if the patient had aberrant behaviors. They also considered adding non-opioid pain therapies (especially re-trying such therapies if they were unhelpful before) and engaging in shared decisionmaking, although with little consensus on specific approaches. Some experts would address co-occurring conditions related to patient safety (alcohol use, mental health symptoms, opioid side effects). Few experts referenced assessing or addressing OUD or overdose risk. In quantitative data, 36% of experts agreed LTOT is beneficial, 36% agreed most LTOT patients should be discontinued, and 57% agreed patients experience harm from tapering and from discontinuation.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Evidence is needed to build on and test these experts' recommendations to attempt tapering and add non-opioid pain therapies for patients reporting harms of continued LTOT who may experience harms from tapering. Such evidence informs the development of clinical practice guidelines that provide comprehensive protocols to support the safety and functioning of this group of patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":19974,"journal":{"name":"Pain Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Management of patients at risk of harms from both continuing and discontinuing their long-term opioid therapy: A qualitative study to inform the gap in clinical practice guidelines.\",\"authors\":\"Christine Timko, Mai Chee Lor, Stefan Kertesz, Kurt Kroenke, Kathryn Macia, Andrea Nevedal, Katherine J Hoggatt\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/papr.13440\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Although long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) for chronic pain has declined, it remains common in the U.S. Providers do not have clinical practice guidelines for vulnerable LTOT patients, in whom both LTOT continuation and tapering to discontinuation pose risks of harm and in whom opioid use disorder (OUD) is absent.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>To begin to meet the gap in guidelines, the study used a multiple case study approach. Five cases were constructed to systematically vary key elements of LTOT continuation and discontinuation harms among patients reporting LTOT's lack of efficacy (experience of pain and poor function). For each, treatment approaches were collected from 28 opioid safety experts identified through their participation in a national policy panel (19 were physicians) and analyzed using template analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For patients receiving LTOT with harms of continuation and discontinuation, experts recommended attempting a slow taper (even with a prior unsuccessful taper, possibly with adjuvant medications to manage withdrawal) and not maintaining opioid therapy. Experts considered switching to buprenorphine, especially if the patient had aberrant behaviors. They also considered adding non-opioid pain therapies (especially re-trying such therapies if they were unhelpful before) and engaging in shared decisionmaking, although with little consensus on specific approaches. Some experts would address co-occurring conditions related to patient safety (alcohol use, mental health symptoms, opioid side effects). Few experts referenced assessing or addressing OUD or overdose risk. In quantitative data, 36% of experts agreed LTOT is beneficial, 36% agreed most LTOT patients should be discontinued, and 57% agreed patients experience harm from tapering and from discontinuation.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Evidence is needed to build on and test these experts' recommendations to attempt tapering and add non-opioid pain therapies for patients reporting harms of continued LTOT who may experience harms from tapering. Such evidence informs the development of clinical practice guidelines that provide comprehensive protocols to support the safety and functioning of this group of patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19974,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pain Practice\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pain Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/papr.13440\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/papr.13440","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:尽管用于慢性疼痛的长期阿片类药物治疗(LTOT)有所减少,但在美国仍很常见。医疗服务提供者没有针对长期阿片类药物治疗的易感患者的临床实践指南,这些患者无论是继续LTOT治疗还是逐渐减量至停药都会带来伤害风险,而且不存在阿片类药物使用障碍(OUD):为了填补指南方面的空白,本研究采用了多重病例研究法。研究构建了五个案例,以系统地改变报告LTOT缺乏疗效(疼痛和功能不佳)的患者中继续和停止LTOT危害的关键因素。每个案例的治疗方法都是从 28 位阿片类药物安全专家(19 位是医生)那里收集的,这些专家是通过参加国家政策小组而被确定的:对于接受 LTOT 且继续和停止治疗均有危害的患者,专家建议尝试缓慢减量(即使之前曾有过一次不成功的减量,也可以使用辅助药物来控制戒断),并且不要继续阿片类药物治疗。专家们考虑改用丁丙诺啡,尤其是在患者有异常行为的情况下。他们还考虑增加非阿片类止痛疗法(尤其是在以前的疗法无效的情况下重新尝试此类疗法),并参与共同决策,但对具体方法几乎没有达成共识。一些专家希望解决与患者安全相关的并发症(酗酒、精神健康症状、阿片类药物副作用)。很少有专家提及评估或解决 OUD 或用药过量风险。在定量数据方面,36% 的专家认为 LTOT 是有益的,36% 的专家认为大多数 LTOT 患者应该停药,57% 的专家认为患者会因减量和停药而受到伤害:讨论:这些专家建议患者尝试减量治疗并增加非阿片类止痛疗法。这些证据可为临床实践指南的制定提供参考,该指南应提供全面的方案,以支持这类患者的安全和功能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Management of patients at risk of harms from both continuing and discontinuing their long-term opioid therapy: A qualitative study to inform the gap in clinical practice guidelines.

Background: Although long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) for chronic pain has declined, it remains common in the U.S. Providers do not have clinical practice guidelines for vulnerable LTOT patients, in whom both LTOT continuation and tapering to discontinuation pose risks of harm and in whom opioid use disorder (OUD) is absent.

Methods: To begin to meet the gap in guidelines, the study used a multiple case study approach. Five cases were constructed to systematically vary key elements of LTOT continuation and discontinuation harms among patients reporting LTOT's lack of efficacy (experience of pain and poor function). For each, treatment approaches were collected from 28 opioid safety experts identified through their participation in a national policy panel (19 were physicians) and analyzed using template analysis.

Results: For patients receiving LTOT with harms of continuation and discontinuation, experts recommended attempting a slow taper (even with a prior unsuccessful taper, possibly with adjuvant medications to manage withdrawal) and not maintaining opioid therapy. Experts considered switching to buprenorphine, especially if the patient had aberrant behaviors. They also considered adding non-opioid pain therapies (especially re-trying such therapies if they were unhelpful before) and engaging in shared decisionmaking, although with little consensus on specific approaches. Some experts would address co-occurring conditions related to patient safety (alcohol use, mental health symptoms, opioid side effects). Few experts referenced assessing or addressing OUD or overdose risk. In quantitative data, 36% of experts agreed LTOT is beneficial, 36% agreed most LTOT patients should be discontinued, and 57% agreed patients experience harm from tapering and from discontinuation.

Discussion: Evidence is needed to build on and test these experts' recommendations to attempt tapering and add non-opioid pain therapies for patients reporting harms of continued LTOT who may experience harms from tapering. Such evidence informs the development of clinical practice guidelines that provide comprehensive protocols to support the safety and functioning of this group of patients.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Pain Practice
Pain Practice ANESTHESIOLOGY-CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
3.80%
发文量
92
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Pain Practice, the official journal of the World Institute of Pain, publishes international multidisciplinary articles on pain and analgesia that provide its readership with up-to-date research, evaluation methods, and techniques for pain management. Special sections including the Consultant’s Corner, Images in Pain Practice, Case Studies from Mayo, Tutorials, and the Evidence-Based Medicine combine to give pain researchers, pain clinicians and pain fellows in training a systematic approach to continuing education in pain medicine. Prior to publication, all articles and reviews undergo peer review by at least two experts in the field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信