Long-Acting Opioids and Short-Acting Opioids: Appropriate Use in Chronic Pain Management

Transcription

1 PAIN MEDICINE Volume 10 Number S Long-Acting Opioids and Short-Acting Opioids: Appropriate Use in Chronic Pain Management Perry G. Fine, MD,* Gagan Mahajan, MD, and Mary Lynn McPherson, PharmD *Pain Research Center, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah; Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of California, Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, California; School of Pharmacy, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, USA ABSTRACT In recent years, opioid therapy for the management of chronic noncancer pain has become more widely accepted following the publication of data demonstrating the efficacy of this class of drugs in a variety of pain conditions, including osteoarthritis, neuropathic pain, and low back pain. An array of short-acting and long-acting opioids has been formulated to help prescribers more effectively tailor the management of chronic pain based on the quality and temporal profile of the pain as well as the functional goals of the individual patient. Evidence suggests that both of these groups of medications offer unique benefits to individual patients and that neither is more efficacious than the other. Rather, both short-acting and long-acting opioids should be considered in the overall pharmacotherapeutic treatment of patients with chronic noncancer pain. Key Words. Chronic; Opioid; Pain Management Introduction In properly selected and monitored patients, opioid analgesics are recognized as a widely accepted and, sometimes, indispensable, class of agents when used as part of a comprehensive, multimodal approach to the management of various types of chronic pain [1,2]. Recent years have seen a move toward greater use of these drugs in the management of the diverse group of patients with chronic noncancer pain [3 6]. Despite the historic stigmatization of opioids and practitioners fears about prescribing agents with abuse potential, these medications are gradually becoming more accepted in the spectrum of noncancer pain syndromes, a concept that has been endorsed by organizations including the American Pain Society, American Academy of Pain Medicine, and the American Geriatrics Society, others [7,8]. This may be attributable to greater clinical experience with this drug class, the availability of different long-acting opioid (LAO) Reprint requests to: Perry G. Fine, MD, Pain Research Center, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT 84108, USA. Tel: ; Fax: ; perry.fine@hsc.utah.edu. and short-acting opioid (SAO) formulations allowing better tailoring of therapy to patient needs, and an appreciation that all long-term therapies, including interventional therapies, require consideration of risk benefit ratios. In addition, agents commonly prescribed for diverse chronic pain conditions such as the cyclooxygenase-2-selective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), which promised analgesic efficacy without the potential gastrointestinal side effects of nonselective NSAIDs, have been associated with a significant risk of cardiovascular adverse events [9], turning attention back to the role of opioids in the management of many chronic pain conditions. Moreover, although management of neuropathic pain remains clinically challenging, recent evidence supports a role for opioids in rationally constructed multidrug regimens for such conditions as postherpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic neuropathy [10]. Health care providers must turn to available evidence and their own clinical experience for guidance on how best to employ opioids in clinical practice [1]. A number of controlled trials have established the efficacy of different opioids in musculoskeletal conditions, including osteoarthritis American Academy of Pain Medicine /09/$15.00/S79 S79 S88 doi: /j x

2 S80 Fine et al. [11], low back pain [12,13], and various neuropathic pain conditions such as diabetic peripheral neuropathy and postherpetic neuralgia [14]. However, clinical trials often fail to reflect real-life practice [15] and may not offer practical guidance on how to select and position available treatments and formulations to best suit patient needs [16]. Recent meta-analyses and systematic reviews [15 19] highlight the difficulties of appraising clinical trial data in support of opioid treatments and formulations in routine and often longterm chronic pain management. This article provides a constructivist view of LAO and SAO preparations within chronic pain management; this type of approach is characterized by an organized, structured approach to practice that focuses on attaining therapeutic goals while minimizing potential harms. Examining the current state of knowledge regarding these formulations can aid the clinician in generating a cohesive framework from which to apply sound clinical judgment in the selection of appropriate agents and dosage formulations. Patient Assessment: A Key to Successful Intervention Comprehensive patient assessment is required to allow proper consideration of the potential Table 1 Patient selection Principles of opioid prescribing Perform comprehensive assessment benefits and risks of the available pharmacotherapeutic treatment options, including drug choice, routes, and dosing regimen [20 23]. This includes a complete medical and psychological history, differential diagnosis of presenting symptoms, and analysis of relevant comorbid conditions [20,21]. An important step in assessment for potential opioid therapy, in particular, is a discussion about patient personal or family history of substance abuse, as patients with such a historyj are more likely to develop aberrant drug-taking behaviors later in therapy [20,24]. The general principles of opioid prescribing are summarized in Table 1 [25]. Prescribers may wish to consider these key questions, based on Fine and Portenoy, to help determine the appropriateness of opioids in a particular patient [20]: What is the conventional management for this type of pain within the immediate practice setting and compared with national standards of care? Are there other treatments with more favorable risk benefit ratios than opioids in terms of pain control and improvement in function and quality of life (QoL) in this type of patient with this type of pain? Are there relatively high risks related to opioid pharmacotherapy in this patient given their Full characterization of pain complaint Evaluation-relevant comorbidities Current substance abuse Personal history of substance abuse Family history of substance abuse Opioid selection Consider Severity and pattern of pain Age, medical comorbidities, individual differences, previous opioid experiences Drug-specific differences Route selection Use least invasive route possible Consider patient characteristics and adherence Dosing Initiating therapy Consider previous dosing requirements and relative analgesic potencies Start with lowest likely effective dose Increasing dose Increase in increments (30 100%) Size of increment and time interval between increments influenced by severity of pain, treatment side effects Increase dose until adequate analgesia occurs or dose-limiting side effects occur Schedule Consider schedule: ATC or prn depending on temporal pain patterns Rescue Consider rescue medicine for BTP Monitoring Monitor Efficacy, side effects of treatment Aberrant behaviors, other responses over time Consider modifications Follow-up Modify frequency and tailor to individual patient s clinical, social circumstances Source: Smith et al. [25]. ATC = around-the-clock; BTP = breakthrough pain; prn, as-needed.

3 Opioids: Appropriate Use in Chronic Pain Management S81 Table 2 Universal precautions for assessment of chronic pain 1. Differential diagnosis 2. Psychological assessment (including risk of addictive disorders) 3. Informed consent 4. Treatment agreement or opioid contract 5. Assessment of pain level and function before and after intervention 6. Appropriate trial of opioid with or without adjunctive medication 7. Reassessment of pain score and level of function 8. Regular assessment of the four As of pain medicine: analgesia, activities of daily living, adverse events, aberrant behaviors 9. Periodic review of pain diagnosis and comorbid conditions 10. Documentation Adapted from Gourlay et al. [26]. personal and medical history? This relates not only to the risk of medication misuse, but importantly, to the role that comorbidities or drug interactions may play in therapy selection. Are there concerns about the responsible use of medication over time? This risk assessment applies to the patient as well as the patient s home and work environments (e.g., friends and family). Appropriate use of a universal precautions approach (Table 2) [26] and validated tools such as the Opioid Risk Tool [27] or the revised Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain [28] can help with a structured risk assessment in every patient being considered for opioid therapy. Because of the variability in response to opioids among individual patients, the relative risks associated with this class of drugs, and differing degrees of prescriber comfort and experience using opioids in chronic pain treatment, it is important to consider a multidimensional and multidisciplinary approach to ensure the provision of appropriate care with these agents [29]. Some patients can be treated in a primary care setting, while others represent a more significant challenge and may best be referred to a specialist with related specific experience in addiction or psychiatry. Commonly, there is a middle ground; many patients can be comanaged with the assistance of other specialists [26]. The use of non-opioid and nonpharmacologic approaches should be considered and tailored for the individual patient [7]. LAOs and SAOs in Chronic Pain Management Having decided that a patient is a suitable candidate for opioid-based therapy, the clinician has the choice of a wide range of agents with distinct pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic characteristics, such as opioid receptor selectivity of full or partial agonists, mixed agonist antagonists, time to analgesic onset, elimination half-life, and duration of analgesic effect [20,30]. It is important to note that the agent selected for an initial opioid trial will not necessarily form the basis of longer term management. Interindividual variability in biologic responses to particular opioids (including the development of tolerance) preclude always identifying the best opioid for a patient at the outset of treatment [23,31,32]. Clinicians are presented not only with a choice among a variety of opioid agonists, but also with the decision to prescribe either a LAO or a SAO [1,20,32]. Throughout this review, the term LAO will be used to describe opioids that are inherently long acting, such as methadone and levorphanol, as well as modified-release formulations [20]. Table 3 describes some of the most commonly available short-acting and long-acting formulations used for the management of chronic pain [20,33 37]. The pharmacokinetic properties of LAOs allow reduced frequency of dosing relative to SAOs and typically provide analgesia over an 8 72-hour dosing interval [38]. It has been suggested that LAOs have the greatest utility in extended treatment of patients with consistent pain levels, and those in whom non-opioid treatment has failed to provide adequate or tolerable analgesia [39]. Table 3 Opioid formulations available for management of chronic noncancer pain in the community setting Drug Plasma Half-Life, Hours* Formulation Duration of Effect, Hours Codeine 3 Oral 4 6 Fentanyl 7 12 TD TM 1 2 Hydrocodone 2 4 Oral 3 6 Hydromorphone 2 3 Oral 3 6 Levorphanol Oral 3 6 Methadone Oral 6 8 Morphine 2 3 Oral IR 3 6 Oral CR, SR, ER 8 24 Oxycodone 2 3 Oral IR 3 6 Oral CR 8 12 Oxymorphone [33,34] Oral IR 4 6 Oral ER 12 Propoxyphene [35] 6 12 Oral 4 6 Tramadol [36,37] 5 8 Oral IR 4 6 Oral ER 24 * Does not apply to modified-release or TD formulations. Refer to other sources for dosing strengths and recommendations. Adapted from Fine and Portenoy [20] and APS [63]. CR = controlled release; ER = extended release; IR = immediate release; SR = sustained release; TD = transdermal; TM = transmucosal.

4 S82 However, the evidence base for these ideas is not strong [17], and appropriate selection relies primarily on clinical judgment and an evaluation of each individual patient. Many LAOs are formulated specifically to maintain analgesia through modified release of the active agent, which is designed to provide relatively consistent and prolonged plasma drug levels with fewer peak and trough fluctuations compared with short-acting formulations of the same opioid [38]. In addition, LAOs may offer the potential for improved compliance with dosing schedule [40] and avoidance of patient clock-watching between doses, although this idea is supported more by clinical experience than evidence. In contrast, SAOs typically have durations of action of 2 4 hours and often are used during initial dose titration and for patients whose pain is not consistent [38]. Titration with a SAO may prevent long periods of discomfort for the patient should side effects develop. Additionally, the starting dose for many patients may be less than the lowest available strength of a prescribed LAO, necessitating the use of a SAO for titration purposes. After dose initiation and titration is accomplished with SAOs, the patient is often converted to an equivalent dose of a LAO, although some patients may prefer to use these agents for aroundthe-clock (ATC) control of continuous pain as well as for intermittent use on an as-needed (prn) basis [38]. It should be noted that transdermal fentanyl is specifically contraindicated in opioid-naïve patients [41]. The group of SAOs known as rapid-onset opioids (ROOs), including oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate and fentanyl buccal tablets, have been designed as rescue medication for cancer-related breakthrough pain (BTP), defined as sudden, severe flares of pain that occur against a backdrop of well-controlled baseline pain [42,43]. The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of ROOs provide for quick onset and offset of action and allow for effective management of sudden and intense episodes of pain [44,45]. Particular care, however, should be taken when prescribing these potent agents, which are currently Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved for cancer-related BTP only. Their rapid onset of effect and lack of a correlation between the baseline and breakthrough doses requires that they are titrated independently and that patients are opioid tolerant as defined by the FDA [46 48]. Further, acceptance of the use of ROOs for the treatment of BTP in patients with chronic noncancer pain is varied Fine et al. [43], although these agents have demonstrated efficacy and safety in short-term studies of patients with noncancer BTP [49,50], concerns remain about their long-term effectiveness and potential for abuse. It, however, remains to be determined whether there is any greater or lesser risk of problematic drug-related behaviors in cancer and noncancer pain patients who have BTP. Therefore, the decision to prescribe ROOs, regardless of underlying pain pathophysiology, should follow sound principles of practice for all opioid therapies, and include risk assessment, a benefit risk evaluation, and recognition that some patients may have few, if any, BTP treatment alternatives that are as efficacious as ROOs. Relative Efficacy of LAOs and SAOs in Long-Term Treatment Few studies have directly compared LAOs and SAOs for the management of chronic pain, and no strong body of literature demonstrates more or less benefit for either type of opioid preparation in relation to analgesia, functionality, QoL, or aberrant behaviors. For example, a study comparing controlled-release (CR) oxycodone administered twice daily (every 12 hours) with immediaterelease (IR) oxycodone/acetaminophen dosed every 6 hours in 167 subjects with chronic osteoarthritis demonstrated no significant differences between the formulations on pain scores [11]. In another study of CR vs IR oxycodone, similar analgesic efficacy was observed for up to 10 days of treatment in 47 patients with chronic back pain [12]. Finally, two studies, comparing four timesdaily oxycodone IR with twice-daily oxycodone CR in patients with cancer pain and low back pain, concluded that both formulations can achieve levels of stable analgesia in more than 80% of patients [51]. Several literature reviews also failed to identify clear differences in benefit between LAOs and SAOs [15 19]. One of these reviews, which focused on the efficacy and safety of these groups of agents in noncancer pain, examined 16 randomized trials and 8 observational studies, which together provided data on more than 2,500 patients. Insufficient evidence was found to determine whether one class was more effective or was associated with better adverse event rates than the other [17]. Clinical trials typically are constructed to answer questions about a specific drug (proving efficacy/equivalence of analgesia, profiling safety/ tolerability), rather than to identify the best regimen, formulation, schedule, and long-term

5 Opioids: Appropriate Use in Chronic Pain Management S83 treatment plan to manage patient pain [52,53]. Moreover, clinical trials are frequently of relatively short duration (commonly <16 weeks) and therefore cannot provide an evidence base in support (or in refute) of long-term use of opioid therapy [16]. It is not surprising, therefore, that reviews and meta-analyses of the clinical trial literature fail to provide concrete evidence supporting or contraindicating long-term use of either type of opioid in chronic pain. Many reviews attest to the paucity of literature and inconsistency of findings, which serves to cloud the evidence base for using these drugs in daily practice [15,18,54]. The lack of conclusive findings in these analyses points to the need for individualization of care for each patient, as no argument can be made that one or another opioid is generally more effective [17]. Few contest the efficacy, as demonstrated in clinical studies and in routine care, of opioids in relieving the discomfort of chronic pain syndromes, but many question the relevance of published clinical trial data in the routine, and often long-term, management of chronic pain [1,2]. Although review of clinical trial data suggests that many patients discontinue long-term opioid therapy due to either insufficient pain relief or adverse effects, the same studies establish that there are many patients who clearly respond well [15]. Both issues, while often not completely analyzed due to the constraints of trial protocols, may be corrected in real-world clinical practice through opioid rotation, dose titration, or administration of additional pharmacologic or nonpharmacologic therapies (see Multimodal Analgesia in this supplement) [1,21 23]. Practical Considerations in Deciding on an Appropriate Treatment Strategy Patients with chronic pain represent a highly heterogeneous group in terms of age, pain etiology and symptoms, comorbidities, and ability to tolerate discomfort. In addition, the biopsychosocial nature of pain, impact of adverse effects of treatment, context of treatment (e.g., interdisciplinary rehabilitative model vs single modality medical model), and patient preferences affect the relative merits of any treatment choice. Decisions depend on pain fluctuation, activity levels, functional goals, social circumstances, and other variables [20], including patient adherence and medication use behaviors. Although LAOs offer less frequent dosing, which can improve compliance [38] it is important not to choose an agent merely on the presumption that perceived convenience will promote adherence [38], or that patients prescribed SAOs for ATC dosing may only use the medication reactively, after pain levels increase, thereby reducing overall daily pain control [40]. Similarly, it is important not to restrict the use of SAOs only for acute pain. The lack of a consistent evidence base requires a flexible approach that tailors choice of opioid formulation to individual needs, goals, clinical context, and social environment, all of which may be important for constructing a pain management plan and the derived outcomes of treatment [20]. For example, in carefully selected patients and with appropriate monitoring, LAOs may provide relief for patients whose pain interferes with their ability to sleep through the night [55], or for patients in whom the peak trough effects of SAOs cause end-of-dose failure, causing pain to recur before the next scheduled dose. Other patients with chronic pain may prefer the faster onset of most SAOs and the psychological comfort of controlling pain with more frequent dosing, particularly in cases of more intermittent pain. Comprehensive patient assessment plays a key role in the anticipation of these factors. Finally, empirical observation suggests that individual patients with chronic pain may have specific preferences based upon their own experiences with either a LAO or SAO [5,17,19,31]. Practical Issues in Opioid Initiation, Titration, and Rotation The goal of opioid-based therapy, like all other treatments, is to optimize the balance between benefit and risk. Proper initiation and titration of dosage are keys to achieving this goal. A low-dose SAO often is favored for initial opioid therapy [38]; because of their short halflives and IR profiles, SAOs can be titrated to effective analgesia more rapidly and in an unmonitored setting safely than a LAO [20]. Titration to a new dose should not occur until after drug plasma levels have reached steady state (approximately five half-lives), which, for LAOs, is longer than for SAOs [20]. A patient s response to previous opioid trials in terms of efficacy and side effects also can be informative, allowing for more appropriate selection of an initial opioid and dose for that patient [20]. There is some support for use of LAOs in initial titration for opioid-experienced patients, although this strategy requires close monitoring for adverse effects [55].

6 S84 Although there is some literature on rapid titration with CR formulations, these observations were made under closely monitored conditions in patients with cancer rather than noncancer pain [55,56]. One of the few studies to address use of LAOs vs SAOs in patients with noncancer pain suggests that, although dose titration with LAOs may offer some utility in carefully selected cases, it carries a potential for increased adverse effects, particularly nausea and emesis, relative to SAOs [51]. The risk of respiratory depression can be significant if opioids are not carefully titrated, and this risk is heightened in patients who are not opioid experienced [20]. Importantly, the guidance offered here relates to usual outpatient care, and not pain crises, in which inpatient admission or close supervision may be indicated [20]. In all clinical settings where opioid therapy is initiated and doses are increased, safety is the first priority. Some formulations are not appropriate, and indeed, could be dangerous, when used for treatment initiation. For example, transdermal fentanyl patches carry a black box warning against use in opioid-naïve patients [41]. Because of the high drug concentration and rate of delivery, this formulation can cause severe respiratory depression in patients who are not opioid experienced [41]. Methadone is characterized by significantly different and complicated pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties compared with those of other opioids. For example, methadone has a long and variable half-life ( h), with steady-state serum concentrations achieved after 4 5 half-lives [20,57]; therefore, time and patience are required when adjusting methadone doses. Furthermore, conversion to methadone from other opioids demands significantly greater attention to dosing due its unpredictable pharmacokinetics and the potential for torsade de pointes, serotonin toxicity, and numerous known drug drug interactions that result from its complicated mechanism of action and uncertain metabolism [20,57,58]. Once an opioid and formulation have been selected, the dosage should be titrated individually to the level that provides maximal analgesia with minimal adverse effects for each patient. Dosage adjustment may be required several times during a course of therapy should tolerance, new pain syndromes, or severe adverse effects develop. Dose escalation of ATC opioids should be made gradually; in general, it is recommended that a dose be increased 30 50%, or up to 100% [20], if pain is uncontrolled, the patient s history indicates an ability to tolerate such an increase, and a Fine et al. responsible caregiver is available to monitor for serious adverse effects. The opioid dose usually is not increased before achieving steady-state serum concentrations, which vary depending on the opioid and the formulation. In the case of a patient receiving opioids both ATC and prn, the supplemental opioid is added to the fixed-dose amount. Careful assessment of patient response to the new regimen is required during titration, and it is recommended that the method and timing of titration be consistent irrespective of the specific opioid or formulation. Of note, if patients are receiving both a LAO and a SAO, both opioids should be titrated concurrently [20]. Ongoing Assessment, Switching, and Maintenance Ongoing patient assessment is an essential aspect of opioid therapy. The 4 A s analgesia, activities of daily living, adverse effects, and aberrant behaviors were developed to provide a framework for health care providers to routinely assess critical outcome measures and gauge treatment success [59]. The 4 A s emphasize that pain relief, functional goals, side effects of treatment, and adherence to the treatment plan should be routinely evaluated and documented to allow the clinician to adjust the therapeutic regimen accordingly. Consistent reassessment is particularly important in the community setting where primary care physicians often assume large responsibility for patient follow-up, including administering therapeutic regimens, determining their efficacy, monitoring adverse events, checking on adherence, and evaluating the effects of pain management strategies on patients QoL [59]. Achieving a balance between analgesic and adverse effects is often a matter of trial and error, and is unique in each individual patient. Even when the initial opioid formulation successfully controls pain, a change in therapy (beyond upward titration) may be required due to a change in clinical status or social circumstances, emergence of new pain pathology, behavioral issues, comorbidities, drug drug interactions, side effects, or analgesic tolerance [26,60]. The management of poorly responsive pain is complex and may require more aggressive treatment, identification of an opioid with a more favorable balance between analgesia and side effects, or use of multiple pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic strategies in combination [20]. Alternatively, the individual patient s pain may not be opioid responsive, necessitating the implementation of predefined exit

7 Opioids: Appropriate Use in Chronic Pain Management S85 strategies from opioid therapy and administration of alternative analgesic approaches [20]. An inadequate response also may be due to the presence of unrecognized and/or untreated BTP, which is often managed with a prn short-acting or rapid-onset rescue opioid. The dose of the shortacting medication is generally 5 15% of the total daily opioid dose [20], whereas, as mentioned earlier, ROOs require an independent titration strategy; studies have found that there is no correlation between the baseline and rapid-onset dose [46]. Differentiating between the baseline pain and flares of BTP is critical, as frequent BTP episodes may indicate inadequate treatment of persistent baseline pain [46]. When escalating the dose of the regularly scheduled opioid, it is important to remember that the rapid-acting or SAO dose may require a similar increase [46]. Adjustments to an analgesic regimen also may be related to patient preferences [17]. For example, a SAO may be used for initial dose titration in patients whose treatment goals include eventual maintenance using a LAO. Some patients may find that once their pain is adequately controlled, they would prefer a treatment using an alternative route of administration. General principles for switching include consulting an equianalgesic table for guidance on dosing, determining the clinically relevant start point for the switch, and consideration of further dose adjustments and rescue medication for BTP. One should be cautious, however, when referring to an equianalgesic table as many are based on studies conducted in opioid-naïve patients, suggesting that these tables may not be useful in treating opioid-experienced patients. Moreover, interindividual variability and incomplete cross-tolerance resulting from genetic polymorphisms and alternative isoforms of opioid receptors demand that care be taken when switching between opioids [61]. Patient responsiveness to each new agent should be reassessed according to both therapeutic response and side effects [20]. Risk management, vigilance for aberrant behaviors, and signs of dependency and misuse of opioid therapies are discussed in greater detail in Current Risk Assessment and Management Paradigms in this supplement. Primary care practitioners, as well as pain specialists, must be aware of these issues and discuss them with patients at all stages of opioid-based pain management. The prescriber can help assess risk and aberrant behaviors through measures such as random urine drug testing, utilization of prescription monitoring programs, and random pill counts [21,28,62]. Throughout patient management, thorough patient documentation of all aspects of the treatment protocol, clinical evaluation, and outcomes of management strategies is essential [26]. Conclusions Detailed attention to appropriate agent selection and dosing regimen, careful titration, and vigilant ongoing assessment has led to the increased acceptance of opioids as a safe and effective component of the multimodal treatment of chronic noncancer pain. In the absence of a set of patient characteristics or predictive test for successful opioid treatment, a short-term trial is the only way the clinician can determine the efficacy and safety of this medication class in a specific patient. An opioid trial has the greatest chance of success if incorporated into an overall management plan that includes structured follow-up to evaluate continued effectiveness over time. Opioid treatment may be further optimized through the inclusion of behavioral, psychological, functional, rehabilitative, and appropriate interventional therapies, along with adjuvant analgesics, when indicated. In addition, the availability of SAO and LAO formulations allows for tailoring of therapy to patient needs. Individualization of therapy can help reduce an overreliance on rigid dosing schedules, allowing patients to focus on activities of daily life rather than their pain or their medication use. This becomes part of an overall behavioral conditioning program, aimed at reducing illness behavior and correcting perceptions of disability and fragility that often are associated with chronic pain. There are a number of data gaps and unmet patient needs in the management of chronic pain. Published evidence supports the efficacy and safety of opioid medications but often fails to provide practical guidance for agent selection or the predictability of long-term benefit. Well-constructed, methodologically sound, long-term trials of opioid therapy in heterogeneous populations are needed. Such trials will help the clinician contribute to the goal of improving pain control in the many patient groups currently experiencing suboptimal pain management or inappropriate exposure to an otherwise efficacious class of analgesic agent. In the absence of long-term data regarding the efficacy of opioid therapy for chronic noncancer pain, clinicians must rely on empirical evidence and employ an N-of-1 trial paradigm to gauge treatment success in the individual patient.

8 S86 Disclosures Dr. Fine discloses that he has held advisory board positions for pharmaceutical companies involved in the development and/or marketing of opioid analgesics, including Cephalon, King, Ortho-McNeil/Pricara, and Purdue Pharma. He has served as a medical-legal expert for Johnson & Johnson. Dr. Mahajan has no disclosures to report. Dr. McPherson has no disclosures to report. This supplement has been sponsored by an unrestricted grant from King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Editorial support was provided by Megan Fink, Ariel Buda-Levin MS, John Lapolla MS, Maggie Van Doren PhD, Jim Kappler PhD, as well as Innovex Medical Communications. References 1 Nicholson B, Passik SD. Management of chronic noncancer pain in the primary care setting. South Med J 2007;100(10): Trescot AM, Helm S, Hansen H, et al. Opioids in the management of chronic non-cancer pain: An update of American Society of the Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) Guidelines. Pain Physician 2008;11(suppl 2):S Avouac J, Gossec L, Dougados M. Efficacy and safety of opioids for osteoarthritis: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2007;15(8): Eisenberg E, McNicol ED, Carr DB. Efficacy and safety of opioid agonists in the treatment of neuropathic pain of nonmalignant origin: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. JAMA 2005;293(24): Chou R, Qaseem A, Snow V, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of low back pain: A joint clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians and the American Pain Society. Ann Intern Med 2007;147(7): Moulin DE, Clark AJ, Gilron I, et al. Pharmacological management of chronic neuropathic pain Consensus statement and guidelines from the Canadian Pain Society. Pain Res Manag 2007;12(1): AGS Panel on Persistent Pain in older persons. The management of persistent pain in older persons. J Am Geriatr Soc 2002;50(suppl 6):S American Academy of Pain Medicine and American Pain Society. The use of opioids for the treatment of chronic pain. A consensus statement from American Academy of Pain Medicine and American Pain Society. Clin J Pain 1997;13(1): Singh G, Wu O, Langhorne P, Madhok R. Risk of acute myocardial infarction with nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: A meta-analysis. Arthritis Res Ther 2006;8(5):R153. Fine et al. 10 Gilron I, Bailey JM, Tu D, Holden RR, Weaver DF. Morphine, gabapentin, or their combination for neuropathic pain. N Engl J Med 2005;352(13): Caldwell JR, Hale ME, Boyd RE, et al. Treatment of osteoarthritis pain with controlled release oxycodone or fixed combination oxycodone plus acetaminophen added to nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs: A double blind, randomized, multicenter, placebo controlled trial. J Rheumatol 1999;26(4): Hale ME, Fleischmann R, Salzman R, et al. Efficacy and safety of controlled-release versus immediaterelease oxycodone: Randomized, double-blind evaluation in patients with chronic back pain. Clin J Pain 1999;15(3): Rauck RL, Bookbinder SA, Bunker TR, et al. The ACTION study: A randomized, open-label, multicenter trial comparing once-a-day extended-release morphine sulfate capsules (AVINZA) to twice-a-day controlled-release oxycodone hydrochloride tablets (OxyContin) for the treatment of chronic, moderate to severe low back pain. J Opioid Manag 2006;2(3): Dworkin RH, O Connor AB, Backonja M, et al. Pharmacologic management of neuropathic pain: Evidence-based recommendations. Pain 2007; 132(3): Noble M, Tregear SJ, Treadwell JR, Schoelles K. Long-term opioid therapy for chronic noncancer pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy and safety. J Pain Symptom Manage 2008; 35(2): Deshpande A, Furlan A, Mailis-Gagnon A, Atlas S, Turk D. Opioids for chronic low-back pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;3:CD Chou R, Clark E, Helfand M. Comparative efficacy and safety of long-acting oral opioids for chronic non-cancer pain: A systematic review. J Pain Symptom Manage 2003;26(5): Ballantyne JC, Shin NS. Efficacy of opioids for chronic pain: A review of the evidence. Clin J Pain 2008;24(6): Chou R. Drug class review on long-acting opioid analgesics. Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU) 2006 (Final Report): Fine PG, Portenoy RK. A Clinical Guide to Opioid Analgesia, 2nd edition. New York: Vendome Group, LLC; Nicholson B. Responsible prescribing of opioids for the management of chronic pain. Drugs 2003; 63(1): Glajchen M. Chronic pain: Treatment barriers and strategies for clinical practice. J Am Board Fam Pract 2001;14(3): Coluzzi F, Pappagallo M. Opioid therapy for chronic noncancer pain: Practice guidelines for initiation and maintenance of therapy. Minerva Anestesiol 2005;71(7 8):

9 Opioids: Appropriate Use in Chronic Pain Management S87 24 Passik SD, Kirsh KL, Donaghy KB, Portenoy RK. Pain and aberrant drug-related behaviors in medically ill patients with and without histories of substance abuse. Clin J Pain 2006;22(2): Smith H, Passik S, Fine PG. Opioid Risk Management. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2008: Gourlay DL, Heit HA, Almahrezi A. Universal precautions in pain medicine: A rational approach to the treatment of chronic pain. Pain Med 2005; 6(2): Webster LR, Webster RM. Predicting aberrant behaviors in opioid-treated patients: Preliminary validation of the opioid risk tool. Pain Med 2005;6(6): Butler SF, Fernandez K, Benoit C, Budman SH, Jamison RN. Validation of the revised screener and opioid assessment for patients with pain (SOAPP- R). J Pain 2008;9(4): Guzman J, Esmail R, Karjalainen K, et al. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation for chronic low back pain: Systematic review. BMJ 2001;322(7301): White JM, Lopatko OV. Opioid maintenance: A comparative review of pharmacological strategies. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2007;8(1): Galer BS, Coyle N, Pasternak GW, Portenoy RK. Individual variability in the response to different opioids: Report of five cases. Pain 1992;49(1): Walsh D. Advances in opioid therapy and formulations. Support Care Cancer 2005;13(3): Opana (oxymorphone hydrochloride). Package Insert. Chadds Ford, PA: Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Opana ER (oxymorphone hydrochloride extendedrelease). Package Insert. Chadds Ford, PA: Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Darvon (propoxyphene hydrochloride). Package Insert. Newport, KY: Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Ultracet (tramadol hydrochloride/acetaminophen). Package Insert. Titusville, NJ: Ortho-McNeil- Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Ultram ER (tramadol hydrochloride extendedrelease). Package Insert. Titusville, NJ: Ortho- McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; McCarberg BH, Barkin RL. Long-acting opioids for chronic pain: Pharmacotherapeutic opportunities to enhance compliance, quality of life, and analgesia. Am J Ther 2001;8(3): Caldwell JR, Rapoport RJ, Davis JC, et al. Efficacy and safety of a once-daily morphine formulation in chronic, moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis pain: Results from a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial and an open-label extension trial. J Pain Symptom Manage 2002;23(4): Ferrell B, Wisdom C, Wenzl C, Brown J. Effects of controlled-released morphine on quality of life for cancer pain. Oncol Nurs Forum 1989;16(4): Duragesic (transdermal fentanyl). Package Insert. Titusville, NJ: Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; McCarberg BH. The treatment of breakthrough pain. Pain Med 2007;8(suppl 1):S Portenoy RK, Messina J, Xie F, Peppin J. Fentanyl buccal tablet (FBT) for relief of breakthrough pain in opioid-treated patients with chronic low back pain: A randomized, placebo-controlled study. Curr Med Res Opin 2007;23(1): Coluzzi PH, Schwartzberg L, Conroy JD, et al. Breakthrough cancer pain: A randomized trial comparing oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate (OTFC) and morphine sulfate immediate release (MSIR). Pain 2001;91(1 2): Slatkin NE, Xie F, Messina J, Segal TJ. Fentanyl buccal tablet for relief of breakthrough pain in opioid-tolerant patients with cancer-related chronic pain. J Support Oncol 2007;5(7): Hagen NA, Fisher K, Victorino C, Farrar JT. A titration strategy is needed to manage breakthrough cancer pain effectively: Observations from data pooled from three clinical trials. J Palliate Med 2007;10(1): Fentora (fentanyl buccal tablet). Package Insert. Frazer, PA: Cephalon, Inc.; Actiq (fentanyl citrate oral transmucosal lozenge). Package insert. Salt Lake City, UT: Cephalon Inc.; Simpson DM, Messina J, Xie F, Hale M. Fentanyl buccal tablet for the relief of breakthrough pain in opioid-tolerant adult patients with chronic neuropathic pain: A multicenter, randomized, doubleblind, placebo-controlled study. Clin Ther 2007; 29(4): Taylor DR, Webster LR, Chun SY, et al. Impact of breakthrough pain on quality of life in patients with chronic, noncancer pain: Patient perceptions and effect of treatment with oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate (OTFC, ACTIQ). Pain Med 2007;8(3): Salzman RT, Roberts MS, Wild J, et al. Can a controlled-release oral dose form of oxycodone be used as readily as an immediate-release form for the purpose of titrating to stable pain control? J Pain Symptom Manage 1999;18(4): Miaskowski C, Mack KA, Dodd M, et al. Oncology outpatients with pain from bone metastasis require more than around-the-clock dosing of analgesics to achieve adequate pain control. J Pain 2002;3(1): Marshall DA, Strauss ME, Pericak D, et al. Economic evaluation of controlled-release oxycodone vs oxycodone-acetaminophen for osteoarthritis pain of the hip or knee. Am J Manag Care 2006; 12(4):

10 S88 54 Hojsted J, Sjogren P. An update on the role of opioids in the management of chronic pain of nonmalignant origin. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 2007; 20(5): Klepstad P, Kaasa S, Jystad A, Hval B, Borchgrevink PC. Immediate- or sustained-release morphine for dose finding during start of morphine to cancer patients: A randomized, double-blind trial. Pain 2003;101(1 2): Wiffen PJ, McQuay HJ. Oral morphine for cancer pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;4: CD Fishman SM, Wilsey B, Mahajan G, Molina P. Methadone reincarnated: Novel clinical applications with related concerns. Pain Med 2002;3(4): Cruciani RA, Sekine R, Homel P, et al. Measurements of QTc in patients receiving chronic Fine et al. methadone therapy. J Pain Symptom Manage 2005; 29(4): Passik SD, Weinreb HJ. Managing chronic nonmalignant pain: Overcoming obstacles to the use of opioids. Adv Ther 2000;17(2): Mercadante S, Portenoy RK. Opioid poorlyresponsive cancer pain. Part 1: Clinical considerations. J Pain Symptom Manage 2001;21(2): Pasternak GW. Molecular biology of opioid analgesia. J Pain Symptom Manage 2005;29(suppl 5):S Katz NP, Adams EH, Benneyan JC, et al. Foundations of opioid risk management. Clin J Pain 2007;23(2): American Pain Society. Principles of Analgesic Use in the Treatment of Acute Pain and Cancer Pain, 5th edn. Glenview, IL: American Pain Society; 2003.