Use of chronic opioid therapy for chronic noncancer pain has increased substantially. The American Pain Society and the American Academy of Pain Medicine commissioned a systematic review of the evidence on chronic opioid therapy for chronic noncancer pain and convened a multidisciplinary expert panel to review the evidence and formulate recommendations. Although evidence is limited, the expert panel concluded that chronic opioid therapy can be an effective therapy for carefully selected and monitored patients with chronic noncancer pain. However, opioids are also associated with potentially serious harms, including opioid-related adverse effects and outcomes related to the abuse potential of opioids. The recommendations presented in this document provide guidance on patient selection and risk stratification; informed consent and opioid management plans; initiation and titration of chronic opioid therapy; use of methadone; monitoring of patients on chronic opioid therapy; dose escalations, high-dose opioid therapy, opioid rotation, and indications for discontinuation of therapy; prevention and management of opioid-related adverse effects; driving and work safety; identifying a medical home and when to obtain consultation; management of breakthrough pain; chronic opioid therapy in pregnancy; and opioid-related polices. Perspective: Safe and effective chronic opioid therapy for chronic noncancer pain requires clinical skills and knowledge in both the principles of opioid prescribing and on the assessment and management of risks associated with opioid abuse, addiction, and diversion. Although evidence is limited in many areas related to use of opioids for chronic noncancer pain, this guideline provides recommendations developed by a multidisciplinary expert panel following a systematic review of the evidence.

ObjectiveAims of this consensus panel were to determine (1) an optimal symptom‐based method for assessing opioid‐induced constipation in clinical practice and (2) a threshold of symptom severity to prompt consideration of prescription therapy.MethodsA multidisciplinary panel of 10 experts with extensive knowledge/experience with opioid‐associated adverse events convened to discuss the literature on assessment methods used for opioid‐induced constipation and reach consensus on each objective using the nominal group technique.ResultsFive validated assessment tools were evaluated: the Patient Assessment of Constipation–Symptoms (PAC‐SYM), Patient Assessment of Constipation–Quality of Life (PAC‐QOL), Stool Symptom Screener (SSS), Bowel Function Index (BFI), and Bowel Function Diary (BF‐Diary). The 3‐item BFI and 4‐item SSS, both clinician administered, are the shortest tools. In published trials, the BFI and 12‐item PAC‐SYM are most commonly used. The 11‐item BF‐Diary is highly relevant in opioid‐induced constipation and was developed and validated in accordance with US Food and Drug Administration guidelines. However, the panel believes that the complex scoring for this tool and the SSS, PAC‐SYM, and 28‐item PAC‐QOL may be unfeasible for clinical practice. The BFI is psychometrically validated and responsive to changes in symptom severity; scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating greater severity and scores >28.8 points indicating constipation.ConclusionsThe BFI is a simple assessment tool with a validated threshold of clinically significant constipation. Prescription treatments for opioid‐induced constipation should be considered for patients who have a BFI score of ≥30 points and an inadequate response to first‐line interventions.

Buprenorphine is a Schedule III opioid analgesic with unique pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties that may be preferable to those of Schedule II full l-opioid receptor agonists. The structure of buprenorphine allows for multimechanistic interactions with opioid receptors l, d, j, and opioid receptor-like 1. Buprenorphine is considered a partial agonist with very high binding affinity for the l-opioid receptor, an antagonist with high binding affinity for the d-and j-opioid receptors, and an agonist with low binding affinity for the opioid receptorlike 1 receptor. Partial agonism at the l-opioid receptor does not provide partial analgesia, but rather analgesia equivalent to that of full l-opioid receptor agonists. In addition, unlike full l-opioid receptor agonists, buprenorphine may have a unique role in mediating analgesic signaling at spinal opioid receptors while having less of an effect on brain receptors, potentially limiting classic opioid-related adverse events such as euphoria, addiction, or respiratory depression. The pharmacokinetic properties of buprenorphine are also advantageous in a clinical setting, where metabolic and excretory pathways allow for use in patients requiring concomitant medications, the elderly, and those with renal or hepatic impairment. The unique pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties of buprenorphine translate to an effective analgesic with a potentially favorable safety profile compared with that of full l-opioid receptor agonists for the treatment of chronic pain.

Collaborative on Countering the US Opioid Epidemic [8] has been focusing on comprehensive and collaborative efforts to fundamentally address the opioid epidemic crisis. All of these major initiatives emphasize pain education as a key component in the fight against the dual crises of chronic pain and the opioid epidemic. I am honored to represent the AAPM on the HHS Pain Management Task Force and the NAM Action Collaborative and contribute to these important initiatives of our nation on your behalf.

No abstract

Objective An expert panel convened to reach a consensus on common misconceptions surrounding buprenorphine, a Schedule III partial µ-opioid receptor agonist indicated for chronic pain. The panel also provided clinical recommendations on the appropriate use of buprenorphine and conversion strategies for switching to buprenorphine from a full µ-opioid receptor agonist for chronic pain management. Methods The consensus panel met on March 25, 2019, to discuss relevant literature and provide recommendations on interpreting buprenorphine as a partial µ-opioid receptor agonist, prescribing buprenorphine before some Schedule II, III, or IV options, perioperative/trauma management of patients taking buprenorphine, and converting patients from a full µ-opioid receptor agonist to buprenorphine. Results The panel recommended that buprenorphine’s classification as a partial µ-opioid receptor agonist not be clinically translated to mean partial analgesic efficacy. The panel also recommended that buprenorphine be considered before some Schedule II, III, or IV opioids in patients with a favorable risk/benefit profile on the basis of metabolic factors, abuse potential, and tolerability and that buprenorphine be continued during the perioperative/trauma period. In addition, switching patients from a full µ-opioid receptor agonist to buprenorphine should be considered with no weaning period at starting doses that are based on the previous opioid dose. Conclusions These recommendations provide a framework for clinicians to address most clinical scenarios regarding buprenorphine use. The overall consensus of the panel was that buprenorphine is a unique Schedule III opioid with favorable pharmacologic properties and a safety profile that may be desirable for chronic pain management.

No abstract

Although evidence on the efficacy of UDM in preventing opioid use disorder, overdose, and diversion is limited, UDM is recommended by the panel as part of ongoing comprehensive risk monitoring in patients prescribed opioids for chronic pain.