The heightened interest in pain management is making the need for appropriate boundary setting within the clinician-patient relationship even more apparent. Unfortunately, it is impossible to determine before hand, with any degree of certainty, who will become problematic users of prescription medications. With this in mind, a parallel is drawn between the chronic pain management paradigm and our past experience with problems identifying the "at-risk" individuals from an infectious disease model. By recognizing the need to carefully assess all patients, in a biopsychosocial model, including past and present aberrant behaviors when they exist, and by applying careful and reasonably set limits in the clinician-patient relationship, it is possible to triage chronic pain patients into three categories according to risk. This article describes a "universal precautions" approach to the assessment and ongoing management of the chronic pain patient and offers a triage scheme for estimating risk that includes recommendations for management and referral. By taking a thorough and respectful approach to patient assessment and management within chronic pain treatment, stigma can be reduced, patient care improved, and overall risk contained.

Misunderstandings regarding the nature and occurrence of addiction have historically been barriers to the appropriate treatment of pain and have stigmatized the medical use of opioids. This article reviews the evolution of nomenclature related to addiction, presents current scientific understanding of addiction that may help shape universally acceptable terminology, and discusses an integrated effort of pain and addiction professionals to reach consensus on addiction-related terms. The article suggests key principles that may clarify terminology including: clear differentiation of the concepts of addiction and physical dependence, conceptualization of addiction as a multidimensional disease, and use of a label for the phenomenon of addiction that does not include the ambiguous term "dependence." More universal agreement on terminology related to addiction is expected to improve the treatment of both pain and addictive disorders; improve communication between health care providers, regulators, and enforcement agencies; and reduce health care and other societal costs.

The use of urine drug testing (UDT) has increased over recent years. UDT results have traditionally been used in legal proceedings under supervision of a medical review officer (MRO). In this context, testing has been required by statute or regulation and so is typically not in the "donor's" interest. Physicians, however, can use UDT to assist in monitoring their patient's treatment plan. By using UDT in a patient-centered fashion, both patient and physician interests are maintained. The MRO-based model of testing in the clinical setting can lead to mistrust and a deterioration of the doctor-patient relationship. Clinical testing can enhance the doctor-patient relationship when the results are used to improve communication. A patient-centered model of UDT should be used to improve quality of care. This article discusses why urine is the biological specimen of choice for drug testing; who, when and why to test; testing methods; and, most importantly, interpretation of results.

"Universal Precautions in Pain Medicine: A Rational Approach to the Treatment of Chronic Pain" was published in 2005. In it, a unified 10-step approach to the assessment and management of patients suffering from chronic pain was proposed. As well, a triage scheme of risk stratification was offered. By placing patients into risk categories of low, medium, or high (Groups I, II, and III), it became possible to recommend to primary care practitioners those patients whom they might confidently manage on their own, comanage with specialty support, or refer to specialty clinics with more experience and resources to tackle these often challenging cases. It is important to note that Universal Precautions is not simply about opioid prescribing, although the use of opioids does highlight the value inherent in managing risk in all patients. Moreover, it should serve to remind health care professionals that the presence of significant psychiatric comorbidities, including substance-use disorders, may represent treatable conditions that must be addressed in order to optimize outcomes. Universal Precautions as a concept should be based upon mutual trust and respect between patient and practitioner, both of whom should be committed to setting and achieving realistic goals in both cancer and noncancer pain patients. The goal of this article is to explore the application of a Universal Precautions approach to manage the care of patients with chronic pain who no longer have an appropriate source of the medications upon which they have become physically dependent-so-called inherited pain patients.

Minor metabolic pathways in human subjects have been shown to exist for the conversion of codeine to hydrocodone but have not been reported for the metabolic conversion of morphine to hydromorphone. In this study, urine specimens were collected in an out-patient setting from 13 pain patients who were chronically treated with morphine and other opioids (methadone, oxycodone, and fentanyl). The chronic pain patients were chosen for study because they were treated with high-dose morphine and had no personal or family history of addiction. Results of the initial evaluation and follow up of these patients with random urine tests did not indicate opioid misuse. The specimens were analyzed by GC-MS for the presence of hydromorphone. The reporting limit for hydromorphone was 100 ng/mL. Ten of the 13 morphine-treated patients excreted hydromorphone in minor amounts ranging 120 to 1400 ng/mL. Concurrent morphine concentrations were exceedingly high in these 10 patients and frequently exceeded the upper limit of linearity (> 10,000 ng/mL) of the assay. The ratio of hydromorphone to morphine ranged from 0.015 to 0.024. Morphine concentrations in the three patients in which hydromorphone was not detected tended to be lower than those observed in other patients. For comparison, one additional patient was included in the study, who was prescribed both morphine and hydromorphone. Concentrations of hydromorphone in this patient were in the range of 3400-13,000 ng/mL, while concurrent morphine concentrations were in the range of 3200-6600 ng/mL. These data are highly suggestive that hydromorphone can be produced as a minor metabolite of morphine in humans. Although additional studies in more restricted settings are needed, it is recommended that interpretation of low urinary concentrations of hydromorphone in combination with high concentrations of morphine in morphine-treated pain patients should not be considered as conclusive evidence of hydromorphone misuse.

No abstract

Pain is undertreated in all parts of the world. Multiple barriers exist that prevent valid treatment of the pain patient. This paper will provide definitions of pain, addiction, physical dependence, tolerance, and pseudoaddiction that health professionals need to understand in order to treat pain. It will address how to differentiate between a pain patient and an addict when evaluating the patient for treatment. The physiological benefits of using long- versus short-acting opioids will be presented. With proper education of the medical community, patients should receive humane and compassionate treatment of their chronic pain syndromes.

No abstract