Ambulatory Surgery - 대장, 항문

https://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:135623/ATTACHMENT01

An updated algorithm recommendation for the management of knee osteoarthritis from the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO)

The opioid epidemic has resulted from myriad causes and will not be solved by any simple solution. Consequent to a staggering increase in opioid-related deaths in the USA, various governmental inputs and stakeholder strategies have been proposed and implemented with varying success. This article summarizes the history of opioid use and explores the causes for the present day epidemic. Recent trends in opioid-related data demonstrate an almost fourfold increase in overdose deaths from 1999 to 2008. Tragically, opioids claimed over 64,000 lives just last year. Some solutions have undergone legislation, including the limitation of numbers of opioids postsurgery, as well as growing national prevalence of enhanced recovery after surgery protocols which focus on reduced postoperative opioid consumption and shortened hospital stays. Stricter prescribing practices and prescription monitoring programs have been instituted in the recent past. Improvement in abuse deterrent strategies which is a major focus of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for all opioid preparations will likely play an important role by increasing the safety of these medications. Future potential strategies such as additional legislative policies, public awareness, and physician education are also detailed in this review.

/pdf/a-brief-history-of-the-opioid-epidemic-and-strategies-for-4u6g1eiko2.pdf

A Brief History of the Opioid Epidemic and Strategies for Pain Medicine

Medical pain management is in crisis; from the pervasiveness of pain to inadequate pain treatment, from the escalation of prescription opioids to an epidemic in addiction, diversion and overdose deaths. The rising costs of pain care and managing adverse effects of that care have prompted action from state and federal agencies including the DOD, VHA, NIH, FDA and CDC. There is pressure for pain medicine to shift away from reliance on opioids, ineffective procedures and surgeries toward comprehensive pain management that includes evidence-based nonpharmacologic options. This White Paper details the historical context and magnitude of the current pain problem including individual, social and economic impacts as well as the challenges of pain management for patients and a healthcare workforce engaging prevalent strategies not entirely based in current evidence. Detailed here is the evidence-base for nonpharmacologic therapies effective in postsurgical pain with opioid sparing, acute non-surgical pain, cancer pain and chronic pain. Therapies reviewed include acupuncture therapy, massage therapy, osteopathic and chiropractic manipulation, meditative movement therapies Tai chi and yoga, mind body behavioral interventions, dietary components and self-care/self-efficacy strategies. Transforming the system of pain care to a responsive comprehensive model necessitates that options for treatment and collaborative care must be evidence-based and include effective nonpharmacologic strategies that have the advantage of reduced risks of adverse events and addiction liability. The evidence demands a call to action to increase awareness of effective nonpharmacologic treatments for pain, to train healthcare practitioners and administrators in the evidence base of effective nonpharmacologic practice, to advocate for policy initiatives that remedy system and reimbursement barriers to evidence-informed comprehensive pain care, and to promote ongoing research and dissemination of the role of effective nonpharmacologic treatments in pain, focused on the short- and long-term therapeutic and economic impact of comprehensive care practices.

Evidence-based nonpharmacologic strategies for comprehensive pain care the consortium pain task force white paper

Importance Risk of opioid use disorder, overdose, and death from prescription opioids increases as dosage, duration, and use of extended-release and long-acting formulations increase. States are well suited to respond to the opioid crisis through legislation, regulations, enforcement, surveillance, and other interventions. Objective To estimate temporal trends and geographic variations in 6 key opioid prescribing measures in 50 US states and the District of Columbia. Design, Setting, and Participants Population-based cross-sectional analysis of opioid prescriptions filled nationwide at US retail pharmacies between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2017. Data were obtained from the IQVIA Xponent database. All US residents who had an opioid prescription filled at a US retail pharmacy were included. Main Outcomes and Measures Primary outcomes were annual amount of opioids prescribed in morphine milligram equivalents (MME) per person; mean duration per prescription in days; and 4 separate prescribing rates—for prescriptions 3 or fewer days, those 30 days or longer, those with a high daily dosage (≥90 MME), and those with extended-release and long-acting formulations. Results Between 2006 and 2017, an estimated 233.7 million opioid prescriptions were filled in retail pharmacies in the United States each year. For all states combined, 4 measures decreased: (1) mean (SD) amount of opioids prescribed (mean [SD] decrease, 12.8% [12.6%]) from 628.4 (178.0) to 543.4 (158.6) MME per person, a statistically significant decrease in 23 states; (2) high daily dosage (mean [SD] decrease, 53.1% [13.6%]) from 12.3 (3.4) to 5.6 (1.7) per 100 persons, a statistically significant decrease in 49 states; (3) short-term (≤3 days) duration (mean [SD] decrease, 43.1% [9.4%]) from 18.0 (5.4) to 10.0 (2.5) per 100 persons, a statistically significant decrease in 48 states; and (4) extended-release and long-acting formulations (mean [SD] decrease, 14.7% [13.7%]) from 7.2 (1.9) to 6.0 (1.7) per 100 persons, a statistically significant decrease in 27 states. Two measures increased, each associated with the duration of prescription dispensed: (1) mean (SD) prescription duration (mean [SD] increase, 37.6% [6.9%]) from 13.0 (1.2) to 17.9 (1.4) days, a statistically significant increase in every state; and (2) prescriptions for a term of 30 days or longer (mean [SD] increase, 37.7% [28.9%]) from 18.3 (7.7) to 24.9 (10.7) per 100 persons, a statistically significant increase in 39 states. Two- to 3-fold geographic differences were observed across states, measured by comparing the ratio of each state’s 90th to 10th percentile for each measure. Conclusions and Relevance In this study, across 12 years, the mean duration and prescribing rate for long-term prescriptions of opioids increased, whereas the amount of opioids prescribed per person and prescribing rate for high-dosage prescriptions, short-term prescriptions, and extended-release and long-acting formulations decreased. Some decreases were significant, but results were still high. Two- to 3-fold state variation in 5 measures occurred in most states. This information may help when state-specific intervention programs are being designed.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/articlepdf/2728005/schieber_2019_oi_190044.pdf

Trends and Patterns of Geographic Variation in Opioid Prescribing Practices by State, United States, 2006-2017

Background Opioid use, abuse, and adverse consequences, including death, have escalated at an alarming rate since the 1990s. In an attempt to control opioid abuse, numerous regulations and guidelines for responsible opioid prescribing have been developed by various organizations. However, the US opioid epidemic is continuing and drug dose deaths tripled during 1999 to 2015. Recent data show a continuing increase in deaths due to natural and semisynthetic opioids, a decline in methadone deaths, and an explosive increase in the rates of deaths involving other opioids, specifically heroin and illicit synthetic fentanyl. Contrary to scientific evidence of efficacy and negative recommendations, a significant proportion of physicians and patients (92%) believe that opioids reduce pain and a smaller proportion (57%) report better quality of life. In preparation of the current guidelines, we have focused on the means to reduce the abuse and diversion of opioids without jeopardizing access for those patients suffering from non-cancer pain who have an appropriate medical indication for opioid use. Objectives To provide guidance for the prescription of opioids for the management of chronic non-cancer pain, to develop a consistent philosophy among the many diverse groups with an interest in opioid use as to how appropriately prescribe opioids, to improve the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain and to reduce the likelihood of drug abuse and diversion. These guidelines are intended to provide a systematic and standardized approach to this complex and difficult arena of practice, while recognizing that every clinical situation is unique. Methods The methodology utilized included the development of objectives and key questions. The methodology also utilized trustworthy standards, appropriate disclosures of conflicts of interest, as well as a panel of experts from various specialties and groups. The literature pertaining to opioid use, abuse, effectiveness, and adverse consequences was reviewed, with a best evidence synthesis of the available literature, and utilized grading for recommendation as described by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ).Summary of Recommendations:i. Initial Steps of Opioid Therapy 1. Comprehensive assessment and documentation. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong) 2. Screening for opioid abuse to identify opioid abusers. (Evidence: Level II-III; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 3. Utilization of prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs). (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate to strong) 4. Utilization of urine drug testing (UDT). (Evidence: Level II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 5. Establish appropriate physical diagnosis and psychological diagnosis if available. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong) 6. Consider appropriate imaging, physical diagnosis, and psychological status to collaborate with subjective complaints. (Evidence: Level III; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 7. Establish medical necessity based on average moderate to severe (≥ 4 on a scale of 0 - 10) pain and/or disability. (Evidence: Level II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 8. Stratify patients based on risk. (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 9. Establish treatment goals of opioid therapy with regard to pain relief and improvement in function. (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 10. Obtain a robust opioid agreement, which is followed by all parties. (Evidence: Level III; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate)ii. Assessment of Effectiveness of Long-Term Opioid Therapy 11. Initiate opioid therapy with low dose, short-acting drugs, with appropriate monitoring. (Evidence: Level II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 12. Consider up to 40 morphine milligram equivalent (MME) as low dose, 41 to 90 MME as a moderate dose, and greater than 91 MME as high dose. (Evidence: Level II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 13. Avoid long-acting opioids for the initiation of opioid therapy. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong) 14. Recommend methadone only for use after failure of other opioid therapy and only by clinicians with specific training in its risks and uses, within FDA recommended doses. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong) 15. Understand and educate the patients of the effectiveness and adverse consequences. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong) 16. Similar effectiveness for long-acting and short-acting opioids with increased adverse consequences of long-acting opioids. (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of recommendation: Moderate to strong) 17. Periodically assess pain relief and/or functional status improvement of ≥ 30% without adverse consequences. (Evidence: Level II; Strength of recommendation: Moderate) 18. Recommend long-acting or high dose opioids only in specific circumstances with severe intractable pain. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong)iii. Monitoring for Adherence and Side Effects 19. Monitor for adherence, abuse, and noncompliance by UDT and PDMPs. (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate to strong) 20. Monitor patients on methadone with an electrocardiogram periodically. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong). 21. Monitor for side effects including constipation and manage them appropriately, including discontinuation of opioids when indicated. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong)iv. Final Phase 22. May continue with monitoring with continued medical necessity, with appropriate outcomes. (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 23. Discontinue opioid therapy for lack of response, adverse consequences, and abuse with rehabilitation. (Evidence: Level III; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines were developed based on comprehensive review of the literature, consensus among the panelists, in consonance with patient preferences, shared decision-making, and practice patterns with limited evidence, based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to improve pain and function in chronic non-cancer pain on a long-term basis. Consequently, chronic opioid therapy should be provided only to patients with proven medical necessity and stability with improvement in pain and function, independently or in conjunction with other modalities of treatments in low doses with appropriate adherence monitoring and understanding of adverse events.Key words: Chronic pain, persistent pain, non-cancer pain, controlled substances, substance abuse, prescription drug abuse, dependency, opioids, prescription monitoring, drug testing, adherence monitoring, diversionDisclaimer: The guidelines are based on the best available evidence and do not constitute inflexible treatment recommendations. Due to the changing body of evidence, this document is not intended to be a "standard of care."

Responsible, Safe, and Effective Prescription of Opioids for Chronic Non-Cancer Pain: American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) Guidelines.

Arthur Watanabe

Papers

Responsible, Safe, and Effective Prescription of Opioids for Chronic Non-Cancer Pain: American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) Guidelines.