Pain

SAN DIEGO – When clinicians ask patients to quantify their level of chronic pain on a scale of 1-10, and they rate it as a 7, what does that really mean?

Robert A. Bonakdar, MD, said posing such a question as the main determinator of the treatment approach during a pain assessment “depersonalizes medicine to the point where you’re making a patient a number.” Dr. Bonakdar spoke at Natural Supplements: An Evidence-Based Update, presented by Scripps Center for Integrative Medicine.

“A personalized approach to pain, on the other hand, considers each patient’s individual journey: their sensitivities, experiences, and failures,” he said. “It considers areas that are often overlooked, such as the role of the gut microbiome, mood, and epigenetics.”

Over the past two decades, the number of American adults suffering from pain has increased from 120 million to 178 million, or to 41% of the adult population, said Dr. Bonakdar, a family physician who is director of pain management at the Scripps Center for Integrative Medicine. Data from the National Institutes of Health estimate that Americans spend more than $600 billion each year on the treatment of pain, which surpasses monies spent on cancer, heart disease, and diabetes. According to a 2016 report from the United States Bone and Joint Initiative, arthritis and rheumatologic conditions resulted in an estimated 6.7 million annual hospitalizations, and the average annual cost per person for treatment of a musculoskeletal condition is $7,800.

“If we continue on our current trajectory, we are choosing to accept more prevalence and incidence of these disorders, spiraling costs, restricted access to needed services, and less success in alleviating pain and suffering – a high cost,” Edward H. Yelin, PhD, cochair of the report’s steering committee, and professor of medicine and health policy at the University of California, San Francisco, said in a prepared statement in 2016. That same year, Brian F. Mandell, MD, PhD, editor of the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine, penned an editorial in which he stated that “The time has come to move past using a one-size-fits-all fifth vital sign . . . and reflexively prescribing an opioid when pain is characterized as severe” (Clev Clin J Med. 2016. Jun;83[6]:400-1). A decade earlier, authors of a cross-sectional review at a single Department of Veterans Affairs medical center set out to assess the impact of the VA’s “Pain as the 5th Vital Sign” initiative on the quality of pain management (J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21[6]:607–12). They found that patients with substantial pain documented by the fifth vital sign often had inadequate pain management. The preponderance of existing evidence suggests that a different approach is needed to prescribing opioids, Dr. Bonakdar said. “It’s coming from every voice in pain care: that what we are doing is not working,” he said. “It’s not only not working; it’s dangerous. That’s the consequence of depersonalized medicine. What’s the consequence of depersonalized nutrition? It’s the same industrialized approach.”

The typical American diet, he continued, is rife with processed foods and lacks an adequate proportion of plant-based products. “It’s basically a setup for inflammation,” Dr. Bonakdar said. “Most people who come into our clinic are eating 63% processed foods, 25% animal foods, and 12% plant foods. When we are eating, we’re oversizing it because that’s the American thing to do. At the end of the day, this process is not only killing us from heart disease and stroke as causes of death, but it’s also killing us as far as pain. The same diet that’s causing heart disease is the same diet that’s increasing pain.”

Dr. Bonakdar said that the ingestion of ultra-processed foods over time jumpstarts the process of dysbiosis, which increases gut permeability. “When gut permeability happens, and you have high levels of polysaccharides and inflammatory markers such as zonulin and lipopolysaccharide (LPS), it not only goes on to affect adipose tissue and insulin resistance, it can affect the muscle and joints,” he explained. “That is a setup for sarcopenia, or muscle loss, which then makes it harder for patients to be fully functional and active. It goes on to cause joint problems as well.”

He likened an increase in gut permeability to “a bomb going off in the gut.” Routine consumption of highly processed foods “creates this wave of inflammation that goes throughout your body affecting joints and muscles, and causes an increased amount of pain. Over time, patients make the connection but it’s much easier to say, ‘take this NSAID’ or ‘take this Cox-2 inhibitor’ to suppress the pain. But if all you’re doing is suppressing, you’re not going to the source of the pain.”

Dr. Bonakdar cited several recent articles that help to make the connection between dysbiosis and pain, including a review that concluded that dysbiosis of gut microbiota can influence the onset and progression of chronic degenerative diseases (Nutrients. 2019;11[8]:1707). Authors of a separate review concluded that human microbiome studies strongly suggest an incriminating role of microbes in the pathophysiology and progression of RA. Lastly, several studies have noted that pain conditions such as fibromyalgia may have microbiome “signatures” related to dysbiosis, which may pave the way for interventions, such as dietary shifting and probiotics that target individuals with microbiome abnormalities (Pain. 2019 Nov;160[11]:2589-602 and EBioMedicine. 2019 Aug 1;46:499-511).

Clinicians can begin to help patients who present with pain complaints “by listening to what their current pattern is: strategies that have worked, and those that haven’t,” he said. “If we’re not understanding the person and we’re just ordering genetic studies or microbiome studies and going off of the assessment, we sometime miss what interventions to start. In many cases, a simple intervention like a dietary shift is all that’s required.”

A survey of more than 1 million individuals found that BMI and daily pain are positively correlated in the United States (Obesity 2012;20[7]:1491-5). “This is increased more significantly for women and the elderly,” said Dr. Bonakdar, who was not affiliated with the study. “If we can change the diet that person is taking, that’s going to begin the process of reversing this to the point where they’re having less pain from inflammation that’s affecting the adipose tissue and adipokines traveling to their joints, which can cause less dysbiosis. It is very much a vicious cycle that patients follow, but if you begin to unwind it, it’s going to help multiple areas.”

In the Intensive Diet and Exercise for Arthritis (IDEA) trial, researchers randomized 450 patients with osteoarthritis to intensive dietary restriction only, exercise only, or a combination of both (BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2009;10:93). They found that a 5% weight loss over the course of 18 months led to a 30% reduction in pain and a 24% improvement in function.

Inspired by the IDEA trial design, Dr. Bonakdar and his colleagues completed an unpublished 12-week pilot program with 12 patients with a BMI of 27 kg/m² or greater plus comorbidities. The program consisted of weekly group meetings, including a lecture by team clinicians, dietician, and fitness staff; group support sessions with a behavioral counselor; and a group exercise session. It also included weekly 1:1 personal training sessions and biweekly 1:1 dietitian meetings. The researchers also evaluated several deficiencies linked to pain, including magnesium, vitamin D, vitamins B1, B2, and B12, folate, calcium, amino acids, omega 3s, zinc, coenzyme Q10, carnitine, and vitamin C. The goal was a weight reduction of 5%.

The intervention consisted of a 28-day detox/protein shake consumed 1-3 times per day, which contained 17 g of protein per serving. Nutritional supplementation was added based on results of individual diagnostics.

According to preliminary results from the trial, the intended weight goal was achieved. “More importantly, there were significant improvements in markers of dysbiosis, including zonulin and lipopolysaccharide, as well as the adipokine leptin, which appeared to be associated with improvement in quality of life measures and pain,” Dr. Bonakdar said.

He concluded his presentation by highlighting a pilot study conducted in an Australian tertiary pain clinic. It found that a personalized dietitian-delivered dietary intervention can improve pain scores, quality of life, and dietary intake of people experiencing chronic pain (Nutrients. 2019 Jan 16;11[1] pii: E181). “This is another piece of the puzzle showing that these dietary interventions can be done in multiple settings, including tertiary centers with nutrition staff, and that this important step can improve pain and quality of life,” he said.

Dr. Bonakdar disclosed that he receives royalties from Oxford University Press, Lippincott, and Elsevier. He is also a consultant to Standard Process.

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – When clinicians ask patients to quantify their level of chronic pain on a scale of 1-10, and they rate it as a 7, what does that really mean?

Robert A. Bonakdar, MD, said posing such a question as the main determinator of the treatment approach during a pain assessment “depersonalizes medicine to the point where you’re making a patient a number.” Dr. Bonakdar spoke at Natural Supplements: An Evidence-Based Update, presented by Scripps Center for Integrative Medicine.

“A personalized approach to pain, on the other hand, considers each patient’s individual journey: their sensitivities, experiences, and failures,” he said. “It considers areas that are often overlooked, such as the role of the gut microbiome, mood, and epigenetics.”

Over the past two decades, the number of American adults suffering from pain has increased from 120 million to 178 million, or to 41% of the adult population, said Dr. Bonakdar, a family physician who is director of pain management at the Scripps Center for Integrative Medicine. Data from the National Institutes of Health estimate that Americans spend more than $600 billion each year on the treatment of pain, which surpasses monies spent on cancer, heart disease, and diabetes. According to a 2016 report from the United States Bone and Joint Initiative, arthritis and rheumatologic conditions resulted in an estimated 6.7 million annual hospitalizations, and the average annual cost per person for treatment of a musculoskeletal condition is $7,800.

“If we continue on our current trajectory, we are choosing to accept more prevalence and incidence of these disorders, spiraling costs, restricted access to needed services, and less success in alleviating pain and suffering – a high cost,” Edward H. Yelin, PhD, cochair of the report’s steering committee, and professor of medicine and health policy at the University of California, San Francisco, said in a prepared statement in 2016. That same year, Brian F. Mandell, MD, PhD, editor of the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine, penned an editorial in which he stated that “The time has come to move past using a one-size-fits-all fifth vital sign . . . and reflexively prescribing an opioid when pain is characterized as severe” (Clev Clin J Med. 2016. Jun;83[6]:400-1). A decade earlier, authors of a cross-sectional review at a single Department of Veterans Affairs medical center set out to assess the impact of the VA’s “Pain as the 5th Vital Sign” initiative on the quality of pain management (J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21[6]:607–12). They found that patients with substantial pain documented by the fifth vital sign often had inadequate pain management. The preponderance of existing evidence suggests that a different approach is needed to prescribing opioids, Dr. Bonakdar said. “It’s coming from every voice in pain care: that what we are doing is not working,” he said. “It’s not only not working; it’s dangerous. That’s the consequence of depersonalized medicine. What’s the consequence of depersonalized nutrition? It’s the same industrialized approach.”

The typical American diet, he continued, is rife with processed foods and lacks an adequate proportion of plant-based products. “It’s basically a setup for inflammation,” Dr. Bonakdar said. “Most people who come into our clinic are eating 63% processed foods, 25% animal foods, and 12% plant foods. When we are eating, we’re oversizing it because that’s the American thing to do. At the end of the day, this process is not only killing us from heart disease and stroke as causes of death, but it’s also killing us as far as pain. The same diet that’s causing heart disease is the same diet that’s increasing pain.”

Dr. Bonakdar said that the ingestion of ultra-processed foods over time jumpstarts the process of dysbiosis, which increases gut permeability. “When gut permeability happens, and you have high levels of polysaccharides and inflammatory markers such as zonulin and lipopolysaccharide (LPS), it not only goes on to affect adipose tissue and insulin resistance, it can affect the muscle and joints,” he explained. “That is a setup for sarcopenia, or muscle loss, which then makes it harder for patients to be fully functional and active. It goes on to cause joint problems as well.”

He likened an increase in gut permeability to “a bomb going off in the gut.” Routine consumption of highly processed foods “creates this wave of inflammation that goes throughout your body affecting joints and muscles, and causes an increased amount of pain. Over time, patients make the connection but it’s much easier to say, ‘take this NSAID’ or ‘take this Cox-2 inhibitor’ to suppress the pain. But if all you’re doing is suppressing, you’re not going to the source of the pain.”

Dr. Bonakdar cited several recent articles that help to make the connection between dysbiosis and pain, including a review that concluded that dysbiosis of gut microbiota can influence the onset and progression of chronic degenerative diseases (Nutrients. 2019;11[8]:1707). Authors of a separate review concluded that human microbiome studies strongly suggest an incriminating role of microbes in the pathophysiology and progression of RA. Lastly, several studies have noted that pain conditions such as fibromyalgia may have microbiome “signatures” related to dysbiosis, which may pave the way for interventions, such as dietary shifting and probiotics that target individuals with microbiome abnormalities (Pain. 2019 Nov;160[11]:2589-602 and EBioMedicine. 2019 Aug 1;46:499-511).

Clinicians can begin to help patients who present with pain complaints “by listening to what their current pattern is: strategies that have worked, and those that haven’t,” he said. “If we’re not understanding the person and we’re just ordering genetic studies or microbiome studies and going off of the assessment, we sometime miss what interventions to start. In many cases, a simple intervention like a dietary shift is all that’s required.”

A survey of more than 1 million individuals found that BMI and daily pain are positively correlated in the United States (Obesity 2012;20[7]:1491-5). “This is increased more significantly for women and the elderly,” said Dr. Bonakdar, who was not affiliated with the study. “If we can change the diet that person is taking, that’s going to begin the process of reversing this to the point where they’re having less pain from inflammation that’s affecting the adipose tissue and adipokines traveling to their joints, which can cause less dysbiosis. It is very much a vicious cycle that patients follow, but if you begin to unwind it, it’s going to help multiple areas.”

In the Intensive Diet and Exercise for Arthritis (IDEA) trial, researchers randomized 450 patients with osteoarthritis to intensive dietary restriction only, exercise only, or a combination of both (BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2009;10:93). They found that a 5% weight loss over the course of 18 months led to a 30% reduction in pain and a 24% improvement in function.

Inspired by the IDEA trial design, Dr. Bonakdar and his colleagues completed an unpublished 12-week pilot program with 12 patients with a BMI of 27 kg/m² or greater plus comorbidities. The program consisted of weekly group meetings, including a lecture by team clinicians, dietician, and fitness staff; group support sessions with a behavioral counselor; and a group exercise session. It also included weekly 1:1 personal training sessions and biweekly 1:1 dietitian meetings. The researchers also evaluated several deficiencies linked to pain, including magnesium, vitamin D, vitamins B1, B2, and B12, folate, calcium, amino acids, omega 3s, zinc, coenzyme Q10, carnitine, and vitamin C. The goal was a weight reduction of 5%.

The intervention consisted of a 28-day detox/protein shake consumed 1-3 times per day, which contained 17 g of protein per serving. Nutritional supplementation was added based on results of individual diagnostics.

According to preliminary results from the trial, the intended weight goal was achieved. “More importantly, there were significant improvements in markers of dysbiosis, including zonulin and lipopolysaccharide, as well as the adipokine leptin, which appeared to be associated with improvement in quality of life measures and pain,” Dr. Bonakdar said.

He concluded his presentation by highlighting a pilot study conducted in an Australian tertiary pain clinic. It found that a personalized dietitian-delivered dietary intervention can improve pain scores, quality of life, and dietary intake of people experiencing chronic pain (Nutrients. 2019 Jan 16;11[1] pii: E181). “This is another piece of the puzzle showing that these dietary interventions can be done in multiple settings, including tertiary centers with nutrition staff, and that this important step can improve pain and quality of life,” he said.

Dr. Bonakdar disclosed that he receives royalties from Oxford University Press, Lippincott, and Elsevier. He is also a consultant to Standard Process.

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – When clinicians ask patients to quantify their level of chronic pain on a scale of 1-10, and they rate it as a 7, what does that really mean?

Robert A. Bonakdar, MD, said posing such a question as the main determinator of the treatment approach during a pain assessment “depersonalizes medicine to the point where you’re making a patient a number.” Dr. Bonakdar spoke at Natural Supplements: An Evidence-Based Update, presented by Scripps Center for Integrative Medicine.

“A personalized approach to pain, on the other hand, considers each patient’s individual journey: their sensitivities, experiences, and failures,” he said. “It considers areas that are often overlooked, such as the role of the gut microbiome, mood, and epigenetics.”

Over the past two decades, the number of American adults suffering from pain has increased from 120 million to 178 million, or to 41% of the adult population, said Dr. Bonakdar, a family physician who is director of pain management at the Scripps Center for Integrative Medicine. Data from the National Institutes of Health estimate that Americans spend more than $600 billion each year on the treatment of pain, which surpasses monies spent on cancer, heart disease, and diabetes. According to a 2016 report from the United States Bone and Joint Initiative, arthritis and rheumatologic conditions resulted in an estimated 6.7 million annual hospitalizations, and the average annual cost per person for treatment of a musculoskeletal condition is $7,800.

“If we continue on our current trajectory, we are choosing to accept more prevalence and incidence of these disorders, spiraling costs, restricted access to needed services, and less success in alleviating pain and suffering – a high cost,” Edward H. Yelin, PhD, cochair of the report’s steering committee, and professor of medicine and health policy at the University of California, San Francisco, said in a prepared statement in 2016. That same year, Brian F. Mandell, MD, PhD, editor of the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine, penned an editorial in which he stated that “The time has come to move past using a one-size-fits-all fifth vital sign . . . and reflexively prescribing an opioid when pain is characterized as severe” (Clev Clin J Med. 2016. Jun;83[6]:400-1). A decade earlier, authors of a cross-sectional review at a single Department of Veterans Affairs medical center set out to assess the impact of the VA’s “Pain as the 5th Vital Sign” initiative on the quality of pain management (J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21[6]:607–12). They found that patients with substantial pain documented by the fifth vital sign often had inadequate pain management. The preponderance of existing evidence suggests that a different approach is needed to prescribing opioids, Dr. Bonakdar said. “It’s coming from every voice in pain care: that what we are doing is not working,” he said. “It’s not only not working; it’s dangerous. That’s the consequence of depersonalized medicine. What’s the consequence of depersonalized nutrition? It’s the same industrialized approach.”

The typical American diet, he continued, is rife with processed foods and lacks an adequate proportion of plant-based products. “It’s basically a setup for inflammation,” Dr. Bonakdar said. “Most people who come into our clinic are eating 63% processed foods, 25% animal foods, and 12% plant foods. When we are eating, we’re oversizing it because that’s the American thing to do. At the end of the day, this process is not only killing us from heart disease and stroke as causes of death, but it’s also killing us as far as pain. The same diet that’s causing heart disease is the same diet that’s increasing pain.”

Dr. Bonakdar said that the ingestion of ultra-processed foods over time jumpstarts the process of dysbiosis, which increases gut permeability. “When gut permeability happens, and you have high levels of polysaccharides and inflammatory markers such as zonulin and lipopolysaccharide (LPS), it not only goes on to affect adipose tissue and insulin resistance, it can affect the muscle and joints,” he explained. “That is a setup for sarcopenia, or muscle loss, which then makes it harder for patients to be fully functional and active. It goes on to cause joint problems as well.”

He likened an increase in gut permeability to “a bomb going off in the gut.” Routine consumption of highly processed foods “creates this wave of inflammation that goes throughout your body affecting joints and muscles, and causes an increased amount of pain. Over time, patients make the connection but it’s much easier to say, ‘take this NSAID’ or ‘take this Cox-2 inhibitor’ to suppress the pain. But if all you’re doing is suppressing, you’re not going to the source of the pain.”

Dr. Bonakdar cited several recent articles that help to make the connection between dysbiosis and pain, including a review that concluded that dysbiosis of gut microbiota can influence the onset and progression of chronic degenerative diseases (Nutrients. 2019;11[8]:1707). Authors of a separate review concluded that human microbiome studies strongly suggest an incriminating role of microbes in the pathophysiology and progression of RA. Lastly, several studies have noted that pain conditions such as fibromyalgia may have microbiome “signatures” related to dysbiosis, which may pave the way for interventions, such as dietary shifting and probiotics that target individuals with microbiome abnormalities (Pain. 2019 Nov;160[11]:2589-602 and EBioMedicine. 2019 Aug 1;46:499-511).

Clinicians can begin to help patients who present with pain complaints “by listening to what their current pattern is: strategies that have worked, and those that haven’t,” he said. “If we’re not understanding the person and we’re just ordering genetic studies or microbiome studies and going off of the assessment, we sometime miss what interventions to start. In many cases, a simple intervention like a dietary shift is all that’s required.”

A survey of more than 1 million individuals found that BMI and daily pain are positively correlated in the United States (Obesity 2012;20[7]:1491-5). “This is increased more significantly for women and the elderly,” said Dr. Bonakdar, who was not affiliated with the study. “If we can change the diet that person is taking, that’s going to begin the process of reversing this to the point where they’re having less pain from inflammation that’s affecting the adipose tissue and adipokines traveling to their joints, which can cause less dysbiosis. It is very much a vicious cycle that patients follow, but if you begin to unwind it, it’s going to help multiple areas.”

In the Intensive Diet and Exercise for Arthritis (IDEA) trial, researchers randomized 450 patients with osteoarthritis to intensive dietary restriction only, exercise only, or a combination of both (BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2009;10:93). They found that a 5% weight loss over the course of 18 months led to a 30% reduction in pain and a 24% improvement in function.

Inspired by the IDEA trial design, Dr. Bonakdar and his colleagues completed an unpublished 12-week pilot program with 12 patients with a BMI of 27 kg/m² or greater plus comorbidities. The program consisted of weekly group meetings, including a lecture by team clinicians, dietician, and fitness staff; group support sessions with a behavioral counselor; and a group exercise session. It also included weekly 1:1 personal training sessions and biweekly 1:1 dietitian meetings. The researchers also evaluated several deficiencies linked to pain, including magnesium, vitamin D, vitamins B1, B2, and B12, folate, calcium, amino acids, omega 3s, zinc, coenzyme Q10, carnitine, and vitamin C. The goal was a weight reduction of 5%.

The intervention consisted of a 28-day detox/protein shake consumed 1-3 times per day, which contained 17 g of protein per serving. Nutritional supplementation was added based on results of individual diagnostics.

According to preliminary results from the trial, the intended weight goal was achieved. “More importantly, there were significant improvements in markers of dysbiosis, including zonulin and lipopolysaccharide, as well as the adipokine leptin, which appeared to be associated with improvement in quality of life measures and pain,” Dr. Bonakdar said.

He concluded his presentation by highlighting a pilot study conducted in an Australian tertiary pain clinic. It found that a personalized dietitian-delivered dietary intervention can improve pain scores, quality of life, and dietary intake of people experiencing chronic pain (Nutrients. 2019 Jan 16;11[1] pii: E181). “This is another piece of the puzzle showing that these dietary interventions can be done in multiple settings, including tertiary centers with nutrition staff, and that this important step can improve pain and quality of life,” he said.

Dr. Bonakdar disclosed that he receives royalties from Oxford University Press, Lippincott, and Elsevier. He is also a consultant to Standard Process.

[email protected]

The median highest pain score in a randomized trial of 38 women undergoing vulvar biopsies was 25.7 mm lower, on a 100 mm visual analogue scale, when they received 5% lidocaine-prilocaine cream instead of a 1% lidocaine injection, according to a report from Duke University, in Durham, N.C.

“In the current study, we found that application of lidocaine-prilocaine cream, alone, for a minimum of 10 minutes before vulvar biopsy on a non–hair-bearing surface results in a significantly lower maximum pain score and a significantly better patient rating of the biopsy experience,” said investigators led by Logan K. Williams, MD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Given the “clear advantage” of the cream, it “should be considered as an anesthetic method for vulvar biopsy in a non-hair-bearing area,” Dr. Williams and colleagues concluded (Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Feb;135{2]:311-8).

Studies have pitted the cream against the injection before, but they did not compare patients’ maximal pain scores. The team wanted to do that because “comparing the highest score allows us to consider the possibility that the pain of anesthesia application” – injection versus cream – “may be greater than the pain of any other portion of the biopsy procedure.”

They randomized 19 women to the cream, approximately 5 g at the site of biopsy at least 10 minutes beforehand, and 18 others to the injection, 2 mL using a 27-gauge needle, at least 1 minute prior.

The median highest pain score in the lidocaine-prilocaine group was 20 mm, but 56.5 mm in the injection group. Patients randomized to lidocaine-prilocaine also had a significantly better (P = 0.02) experience than those receiving injected lidocaine, also assessed by visual analog scale (VAS). The median baseline pain level was 0 mm.

Anxiety was assessed after patients knew whether they were going to get the cream or the injection, but before the biopsy. The median score in the cream group was of 19 mm on another VAS, compared with 31.5 mm.

The team had planned to enroll 106 women, but given the results on interim analysis, they stopped the trial early.

Participants were 60 years old on average, and almost all had prior vulvar biopsies. Two in the cream group and three in the injection group had punch biopsies; cervical biopsy forceps were used for the rest. More than half the women had benign findings, and most of the others had vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia, but there was one invasive cancer. At Duke, the cost of the injection was $0.99, compared with $7.36 for the cream.

Dr. Williams and colleagues cited a few limitations. One is that the patients and clinicians in the study were not blinded. Another is that most of the patients had undergone vulvar biopsy before, possibly predisposing them to bias.

“In the future, consideration could be taken to studying lidocaine-prilocaine cream applications to hair-bearing surfaces, which were excluded in this study.” Also, “there is a question of the histologic effect of lidocaine-prilocaine on tissues and whether this could affect pathologic diagnoses.

“We are conducting a separate ancillary study in conjunction with our dermatopathology colleagues to investigate this question,” the investigators said.

The work was funded by Duke and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Williams had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Williams LK et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Feb;135(2):311-8.

The median highest pain score in a randomized trial of 38 women undergoing vulvar biopsies was 25.7 mm lower, on a 100 mm visual analogue scale, when they received 5% lidocaine-prilocaine cream instead of a 1% lidocaine injection, according to a report from Duke University, in Durham, N.C.

“In the current study, we found that application of lidocaine-prilocaine cream, alone, for a minimum of 10 minutes before vulvar biopsy on a non–hair-bearing surface results in a significantly lower maximum pain score and a significantly better patient rating of the biopsy experience,” said investigators led by Logan K. Williams, MD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Given the “clear advantage” of the cream, it “should be considered as an anesthetic method for vulvar biopsy in a non-hair-bearing area,” Dr. Williams and colleagues concluded (Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Feb;135{2]:311-8).

Studies have pitted the cream against the injection before, but they did not compare patients’ maximal pain scores. The team wanted to do that because “comparing the highest score allows us to consider the possibility that the pain of anesthesia application” – injection versus cream – “may be greater than the pain of any other portion of the biopsy procedure.”

They randomized 19 women to the cream, approximately 5 g at the site of biopsy at least 10 minutes beforehand, and 18 others to the injection, 2 mL using a 27-gauge needle, at least 1 minute prior.

The median highest pain score in the lidocaine-prilocaine group was 20 mm, but 56.5 mm in the injection group. Patients randomized to lidocaine-prilocaine also had a significantly better (P = 0.02) experience than those receiving injected lidocaine, also assessed by visual analog scale (VAS). The median baseline pain level was 0 mm.

Anxiety was assessed after patients knew whether they were going to get the cream or the injection, but before the biopsy. The median score in the cream group was of 19 mm on another VAS, compared with 31.5 mm.

The team had planned to enroll 106 women, but given the results on interim analysis, they stopped the trial early.

Participants were 60 years old on average, and almost all had prior vulvar biopsies. Two in the cream group and three in the injection group had punch biopsies; cervical biopsy forceps were used for the rest. More than half the women had benign findings, and most of the others had vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia, but there was one invasive cancer. At Duke, the cost of the injection was $0.99, compared with $7.36 for the cream.

Dr. Williams and colleagues cited a few limitations. One is that the patients and clinicians in the study were not blinded. Another is that most of the patients had undergone vulvar biopsy before, possibly predisposing them to bias.

“In the future, consideration could be taken to studying lidocaine-prilocaine cream applications to hair-bearing surfaces, which were excluded in this study.” Also, “there is a question of the histologic effect of lidocaine-prilocaine on tissues and whether this could affect pathologic diagnoses.

“We are conducting a separate ancillary study in conjunction with our dermatopathology colleagues to investigate this question,” the investigators said.

The work was funded by Duke and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Williams had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Williams LK et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Feb;135(2):311-8.

The median highest pain score in a randomized trial of 38 women undergoing vulvar biopsies was 25.7 mm lower, on a 100 mm visual analogue scale, when they received 5% lidocaine-prilocaine cream instead of a 1% lidocaine injection, according to a report from Duke University, in Durham, N.C.

“In the current study, we found that application of lidocaine-prilocaine cream, alone, for a minimum of 10 minutes before vulvar biopsy on a non–hair-bearing surface results in a significantly lower maximum pain score and a significantly better patient rating of the biopsy experience,” said investigators led by Logan K. Williams, MD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Given the “clear advantage” of the cream, it “should be considered as an anesthetic method for vulvar biopsy in a non-hair-bearing area,” Dr. Williams and colleagues concluded (Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Feb;135{2]:311-8).

Studies have pitted the cream against the injection before, but they did not compare patients’ maximal pain scores. The team wanted to do that because “comparing the highest score allows us to consider the possibility that the pain of anesthesia application” – injection versus cream – “may be greater than the pain of any other portion of the biopsy procedure.”

They randomized 19 women to the cream, approximately 5 g at the site of biopsy at least 10 minutes beforehand, and 18 others to the injection, 2 mL using a 27-gauge needle, at least 1 minute prior.

The median highest pain score in the lidocaine-prilocaine group was 20 mm, but 56.5 mm in the injection group. Patients randomized to lidocaine-prilocaine also had a significantly better (P = 0.02) experience than those receiving injected lidocaine, also assessed by visual analog scale (VAS). The median baseline pain level was 0 mm.

Anxiety was assessed after patients knew whether they were going to get the cream or the injection, but before the biopsy. The median score in the cream group was of 19 mm on another VAS, compared with 31.5 mm.

The team had planned to enroll 106 women, but given the results on interim analysis, they stopped the trial early.

Participants were 60 years old on average, and almost all had prior vulvar biopsies. Two in the cream group and three in the injection group had punch biopsies; cervical biopsy forceps were used for the rest. More than half the women had benign findings, and most of the others had vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia, but there was one invasive cancer. At Duke, the cost of the injection was $0.99, compared with $7.36 for the cream.

Dr. Williams and colleagues cited a few limitations. One is that the patients and clinicians in the study were not blinded. Another is that most of the patients had undergone vulvar biopsy before, possibly predisposing them to bias.

“In the future, consideration could be taken to studying lidocaine-prilocaine cream applications to hair-bearing surfaces, which were excluded in this study.” Also, “there is a question of the histologic effect of lidocaine-prilocaine on tissues and whether this could affect pathologic diagnoses.

“We are conducting a separate ancillary study in conjunction with our dermatopathology colleagues to investigate this question,” the investigators said.

The work was funded by Duke and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Williams had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Williams LK et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Feb;135(2):311-8.

GRAPEVINE, TEX. – The amount of opioids prescribed post partum may decline over time without affecting levels of pain control satisfaction, according to research presented at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

Data from a large center indicate that trends in opioid use significantly declined from 2017 to 2019, but not at the expense of adequate pain control, said Nevert Badreldin, MD, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Northwestern University in Chicago. Patients consistently reported that they were satisfied with inpatient pain control, while opioid use per inpatient day decreased from about 30 morphine milligram equivalents (MME) to less than 20 MME during that time.

To assess trends in postpartum opioid prescribing, opioid use, and pain control satisfaction, Dr. Badreldin and colleagues evaluated data from a prospective observational study. Their analysis included data from women who used an opioid during postpartum hospitalization between May 2017 and July 2019. The researchers excluded women with NSAID or morphine allergies or recent opioid use, as well as those who received general anesthesia without concurrent neuraxial anesthesia, those who underwent peripartum hysterectomy, and women admitted to the ICU.

The investigators used nonparametric tests of trend to assess the difference over time in the proportion of patients who received an opioid prescription at discharge and in the total MME prescribed post partum.

Of 2,470 women screened, 60.2% did not use an opioid during inpatient hospitalization, and the proportion of women who did use an opioid during inpatient hospitalization significantly declined over time. Of 900 women with inpatient opioid use, 471 agreed to be followed after discharge. In that group, the amount of opioid use per inpatient day significantly declined. In addition, the percentage who received an opioid prescription at discharge significantly declined, as did the total MME prescribed at discharge.

“Both inpatient and outpatient satisfaction with pain control were unchanged,” the researchers reported. “In this population, both the frequency and amount of opioid use in the postpartum period declined from 2017 to 2019, without any change in satisfaction with pain control.”

The study was supported by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine/AMAG 2017 Health Policy Award, and a coauthor received support from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

[email protected]

Source: Badreldin N et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Jan;222(1):S93, Abstract 120.

GRAPEVINE, TEX. – The amount of opioids prescribed post partum may decline over time without affecting levels of pain control satisfaction, according to research presented at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

Data from a large center indicate that trends in opioid use significantly declined from 2017 to 2019, but not at the expense of adequate pain control, said Nevert Badreldin, MD, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Northwestern University in Chicago. Patients consistently reported that they were satisfied with inpatient pain control, while opioid use per inpatient day decreased from about 30 morphine milligram equivalents (MME) to less than 20 MME during that time.

To assess trends in postpartum opioid prescribing, opioid use, and pain control satisfaction, Dr. Badreldin and colleagues evaluated data from a prospective observational study. Their analysis included data from women who used an opioid during postpartum hospitalization between May 2017 and July 2019. The researchers excluded women with NSAID or morphine allergies or recent opioid use, as well as those who received general anesthesia without concurrent neuraxial anesthesia, those who underwent peripartum hysterectomy, and women admitted to the ICU.

The investigators used nonparametric tests of trend to assess the difference over time in the proportion of patients who received an opioid prescription at discharge and in the total MME prescribed post partum.

Of 2,470 women screened, 60.2% did not use an opioid during inpatient hospitalization, and the proportion of women who did use an opioid during inpatient hospitalization significantly declined over time. Of 900 women with inpatient opioid use, 471 agreed to be followed after discharge. In that group, the amount of opioid use per inpatient day significantly declined. In addition, the percentage who received an opioid prescription at discharge significantly declined, as did the total MME prescribed at discharge.

“Both inpatient and outpatient satisfaction with pain control were unchanged,” the researchers reported. “In this population, both the frequency and amount of opioid use in the postpartum period declined from 2017 to 2019, without any change in satisfaction with pain control.”

The study was supported by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine/AMAG 2017 Health Policy Award, and a coauthor received support from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

[email protected]

Source: Badreldin N et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Jan;222(1):S93, Abstract 120.

GRAPEVINE, TEX. – The amount of opioids prescribed post partum may decline over time without affecting levels of pain control satisfaction, according to research presented at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

Data from a large center indicate that trends in opioid use significantly declined from 2017 to 2019, but not at the expense of adequate pain control, said Nevert Badreldin, MD, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Northwestern University in Chicago. Patients consistently reported that they were satisfied with inpatient pain control, while opioid use per inpatient day decreased from about 30 morphine milligram equivalents (MME) to less than 20 MME during that time.

To assess trends in postpartum opioid prescribing, opioid use, and pain control satisfaction, Dr. Badreldin and colleagues evaluated data from a prospective observational study. Their analysis included data from women who used an opioid during postpartum hospitalization between May 2017 and July 2019. The researchers excluded women with NSAID or morphine allergies or recent opioid use, as well as those who received general anesthesia without concurrent neuraxial anesthesia, those who underwent peripartum hysterectomy, and women admitted to the ICU.

The investigators used nonparametric tests of trend to assess the difference over time in the proportion of patients who received an opioid prescription at discharge and in the total MME prescribed post partum.

Of 2,470 women screened, 60.2% did not use an opioid during inpatient hospitalization, and the proportion of women who did use an opioid during inpatient hospitalization significantly declined over time. Of 900 women with inpatient opioid use, 471 agreed to be followed after discharge. In that group, the amount of opioid use per inpatient day significantly declined. In addition, the percentage who received an opioid prescription at discharge significantly declined, as did the total MME prescribed at discharge.

“Both inpatient and outpatient satisfaction with pain control were unchanged,” the researchers reported. “In this population, both the frequency and amount of opioid use in the postpartum period declined from 2017 to 2019, without any change in satisfaction with pain control.”

The study was supported by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine/AMAG 2017 Health Policy Award, and a coauthor received support from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

[email protected]

Source: Badreldin N et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Jan;222(1):S93, Abstract 120.

AUSTIN, TEX. – A quality improvement initiative aimed at patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has reduced emergency department visits and hospitalizations by 20% or more and slashed opioid use by half, according to study results presented at the Crohn’s & Colitis Congress^®, a partnership of the  Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.

After 15 months, the quality improvement program saw emergency department visit rates decline from 18% to 14%, a 22% relative decrease, Gil Y. Melmed, MD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said. Additionally, the study documented a similar decrease in the rate of hospitalization, declining from 14% to 11%, while opioid utilization rates declined from 8% to 4%. “We also found decreases in special-cause variation in other measures of interest, including CT scan utilization as well as corticosteroid use, which was reduced 29% during the course of the program,” he said.

The quality initiative was conducted through the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation as an outgrowth of its IBD Qorus quality improvement program. The 15-month study involved 20,392 patient visits at 15 academic and 11 private/community practices from January 2018 to April 2019. “This specific project within Qorus is focused specifically around the concept of improving access during times of urgent care need,” Dr. Melmed told this news organization. The goal was to identify practice changes that can drive improvement.

The intervention consisted of 19 different strategies, called a “Change Package,” and participating sites could choose to test and implement one or more of them, Dr. Melmed said. Some examples included designating urgent care slots in the clinic schedule, installing a nurse hotline, a weekly “huddle” to review high-risk patients, and patient education on using urgent care.

One of the drivers of the program was to provide immediate care improvement to patients, Dr. Melmed said in the interview. “As opposed to investments into the cure of IBD that we need, but which can take years to develop, this research has immediate, practical applicability for patients today,” he said.

“The fact that we were able to demonstrate reduction in emergency room utilization and hospitalization, steroid use, and narcotic use has really energized the work that we were doing. We can now show that very-low-cost process changes at a site level lead to robust improvement in patient outcomes. These changes are potentially implementable in any practice setting,” Dr. Melmed said in the interview.

After Dr. Melmed’s presentation, Maria T. Abreu, MD, director of the Crohn’s and Colitis Center at the University of Miami, asked about the cost of the interventions. Dr. Melmed said the costs were nominal, such as paying for a new phone line for a patient hotline. “But overall the cost really involved in the program was the time that it took to review the high-risk list on a weekly basis with the team, and that is essentially a 15-minute huddle,” he said.

Later, Dr. Abreu said in an interview that the program was “a terrific example of how measuring outcomes and sharing ideas can make huge impacts in the lives of patients.” She added, “An enormous amount of money is spent on clinical trials of expensive biologics which have revolutionized treatment, yet the humanistic aspects of our care have just as great of an impact. In this study, each center focused on ways they could lower ER visits and hospitalizations. One size did not fit all, yet they could learn from each other. The very platform they used to conduct the study is a model for all of us.”

Corey A. Siegel, MD, of the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., and Dr. Melmed's coprincipal investigator on Qorus, said the quality initiative now includes 49 GI practices across the country with plans to grow to 60 by the end of the year. "We have created this 'collaboratory' for providers from actross the country to work togetherr to learn how to best deliver high-qulaity care for patients with IBD," he said.

Another feature of the quality initiative allowed participating sites to see how they compared with others anonymously, Dr. Melmed said. “Using the data, we called out high-performing sites to teach the rest of us what they were doing that enabled them to improve, so that all of us could learn from their successes,” he said.

The researchers are aiming to evaluate costs and identify the most successful interventions, with the plan to present the latter at Digestive Disease Week^® 2020 and use them to develop a toolkit practices can use. “Ultimately,” said Dr. Melmed, “this is scalable.”

Dr. Melmed disclosed financial relationships with AbbVie, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, Jannsen, GSK, Medtronic, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Takeda, and Techlab; IBD Qorus receives support from Abbvie, AMAG, Helmsley Charitable Trust, Janssen, Nephoroceuticals, Pfizer, Takeda, and UCB.

SOURCE: Melmed GT et al. Crohn’s & Colitis Congress 2020, Session 28.

AUSTIN, TEX. – A quality improvement initiative aimed at patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has reduced emergency department visits and hospitalizations by 20% or more and slashed opioid use by half, according to study results presented at the Crohn’s & Colitis Congress^®, a partnership of the  Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.

After 15 months, the quality improvement program saw emergency department visit rates decline from 18% to 14%, a 22% relative decrease, Gil Y. Melmed, MD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said. Additionally, the study documented a similar decrease in the rate of hospitalization, declining from 14% to 11%, while opioid utilization rates declined from 8% to 4%. “We also found decreases in special-cause variation in other measures of interest, including CT scan utilization as well as corticosteroid use, which was reduced 29% during the course of the program,” he said.

The quality initiative was conducted through the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation as an outgrowth of its IBD Qorus quality improvement program. The 15-month study involved 20,392 patient visits at 15 academic and 11 private/community practices from January 2018 to April 2019. “This specific project within Qorus is focused specifically around the concept of improving access during times of urgent care need,” Dr. Melmed told this news organization. The goal was to identify practice changes that can drive improvement.

The intervention consisted of 19 different strategies, called a “Change Package,” and participating sites could choose to test and implement one or more of them, Dr. Melmed said. Some examples included designating urgent care slots in the clinic schedule, installing a nurse hotline, a weekly “huddle” to review high-risk patients, and patient education on using urgent care.

One of the drivers of the program was to provide immediate care improvement to patients, Dr. Melmed said in the interview. “As opposed to investments into the cure of IBD that we need, but which can take years to develop, this research has immediate, practical applicability for patients today,” he said.

“The fact that we were able to demonstrate reduction in emergency room utilization and hospitalization, steroid use, and narcotic use has really energized the work that we were doing. We can now show that very-low-cost process changes at a site level lead to robust improvement in patient outcomes. These changes are potentially implementable in any practice setting,” Dr. Melmed said in the interview.

After Dr. Melmed’s presentation, Maria T. Abreu, MD, director of the Crohn’s and Colitis Center at the University of Miami, asked about the cost of the interventions. Dr. Melmed said the costs were nominal, such as paying for a new phone line for a patient hotline. “But overall the cost really involved in the program was the time that it took to review the high-risk list on a weekly basis with the team, and that is essentially a 15-minute huddle,” he said.

Later, Dr. Abreu said in an interview that the program was “a terrific example of how measuring outcomes and sharing ideas can make huge impacts in the lives of patients.” She added, “An enormous amount of money is spent on clinical trials of expensive biologics which have revolutionized treatment, yet the humanistic aspects of our care have just as great of an impact. In this study, each center focused on ways they could lower ER visits and hospitalizations. One size did not fit all, yet they could learn from each other. The very platform they used to conduct the study is a model for all of us.”

Corey A. Siegel, MD, of the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., and Dr. Melmed's coprincipal investigator on Qorus, said the quality initiative now includes 49 GI practices across the country with plans to grow to 60 by the end of the year. "We have created this 'collaboratory' for providers from actross the country to work togetherr to learn how to best deliver high-qulaity care for patients with IBD," he said.

Another feature of the quality initiative allowed participating sites to see how they compared with others anonymously, Dr. Melmed said. “Using the data, we called out high-performing sites to teach the rest of us what they were doing that enabled them to improve, so that all of us could learn from their successes,” he said.

The researchers are aiming to evaluate costs and identify the most successful interventions, with the plan to present the latter at Digestive Disease Week^® 2020 and use them to develop a toolkit practices can use. “Ultimately,” said Dr. Melmed, “this is scalable.”

Dr. Melmed disclosed financial relationships with AbbVie, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, Jannsen, GSK, Medtronic, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Takeda, and Techlab; IBD Qorus receives support from Abbvie, AMAG, Helmsley Charitable Trust, Janssen, Nephoroceuticals, Pfizer, Takeda, and UCB.

SOURCE: Melmed GT et al. Crohn’s & Colitis Congress 2020, Session 28.

AUSTIN, TEX. – A quality improvement initiative aimed at patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has reduced emergency department visits and hospitalizations by 20% or more and slashed opioid use by half, according to study results presented at the Crohn’s & Colitis Congress^®, a partnership of the  Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.

After 15 months, the quality improvement program saw emergency department visit rates decline from 18% to 14%, a 22% relative decrease, Gil Y. Melmed, MD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said. Additionally, the study documented a similar decrease in the rate of hospitalization, declining from 14% to 11%, while opioid utilization rates declined from 8% to 4%. “We also found decreases in special-cause variation in other measures of interest, including CT scan utilization as well as corticosteroid use, which was reduced 29% during the course of the program,” he said.

The quality initiative was conducted through the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation as an outgrowth of its IBD Qorus quality improvement program. The 15-month study involved 20,392 patient visits at 15 academic and 11 private/community practices from January 2018 to April 2019. “This specific project within Qorus is focused specifically around the concept of improving access during times of urgent care need,” Dr. Melmed told this news organization. The goal was to identify practice changes that can drive improvement.

The intervention consisted of 19 different strategies, called a “Change Package,” and participating sites could choose to test and implement one or more of them, Dr. Melmed said. Some examples included designating urgent care slots in the clinic schedule, installing a nurse hotline, a weekly “huddle” to review high-risk patients, and patient education on using urgent care.

One of the drivers of the program was to provide immediate care improvement to patients, Dr. Melmed said in the interview. “As opposed to investments into the cure of IBD that we need, but which can take years to develop, this research has immediate, practical applicability for patients today,” he said.

“The fact that we were able to demonstrate reduction in emergency room utilization and hospitalization, steroid use, and narcotic use has really energized the work that we were doing. We can now show that very-low-cost process changes at a site level lead to robust improvement in patient outcomes. These changes are potentially implementable in any practice setting,” Dr. Melmed said in the interview.

After Dr. Melmed’s presentation, Maria T. Abreu, MD, director of the Crohn’s and Colitis Center at the University of Miami, asked about the cost of the interventions. Dr. Melmed said the costs were nominal, such as paying for a new phone line for a patient hotline. “But overall the cost really involved in the program was the time that it took to review the high-risk list on a weekly basis with the team, and that is essentially a 15-minute huddle,” he said.

Later, Dr. Abreu said in an interview that the program was “a terrific example of how measuring outcomes and sharing ideas can make huge impacts in the lives of patients.” She added, “An enormous amount of money is spent on clinical trials of expensive biologics which have revolutionized treatment, yet the humanistic aspects of our care have just as great of an impact. In this study, each center focused on ways they could lower ER visits and hospitalizations. One size did not fit all, yet they could learn from each other. The very platform they used to conduct the study is a model for all of us.”

Corey A. Siegel, MD, of the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., and Dr. Melmed's coprincipal investigator on Qorus, said the quality initiative now includes 49 GI practices across the country with plans to grow to 60 by the end of the year. "We have created this 'collaboratory' for providers from actross the country to work togetherr to learn how to best deliver high-qulaity care for patients with IBD," he said.

Another feature of the quality initiative allowed participating sites to see how they compared with others anonymously, Dr. Melmed said. “Using the data, we called out high-performing sites to teach the rest of us what they were doing that enabled them to improve, so that all of us could learn from their successes,” he said.

The researchers are aiming to evaluate costs and identify the most successful interventions, with the plan to present the latter at Digestive Disease Week^® 2020 and use them to develop a toolkit practices can use. “Ultimately,” said Dr. Melmed, “this is scalable.”

Dr. Melmed disclosed financial relationships with AbbVie, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, Jannsen, GSK, Medtronic, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Takeda, and Techlab; IBD Qorus receives support from Abbvie, AMAG, Helmsley Charitable Trust, Janssen, Nephoroceuticals, Pfizer, Takeda, and UCB.

SOURCE: Melmed GT et al. Crohn’s & Colitis Congress 2020, Session 28.

Ms. L, age 17, seeks treatment because she has an ongoing struggle with multiple substances, including benzodiazepines, heroin, alcohol, cannabis, and prescription opioids.

She reports that she was 13 when she first used a prescription opioid that was not prescribed for her. She also reports engaging in unsafe sexual practices while using these substances, and has been diagnosed and treated for a sexually transmitted disease. She dropped out of school and is estranged from her family. She says that for a long time she has felt depressed and that she uses drugs to “self-medicate my emotions.” She endorses high anxiety and lack of motivation. Ms. L also reports having several criminal charges for theft, assault, and exchanging sex for drugs. She has undergone 3 admissions for detoxification, but promptly resumed using drugs, primarily heroin and oxycodone, immediately after discharge. Ms. L meets DSM-5 criteria for opioid use disorder (OUD).

Ms. L’s case illustrates a disturbing trend in the current opioid epidemic in the United States. Nearly 11.8 million individuals age ≥12 reported misuse of opioids in the last year.¹ Adolescents who misuse prescription or illicit opioids are more likely to be involved with the legal system due to truancy, running away from home, physical altercations, prostitution, exchanging sex for drugs, robbery, and gang involvement. Adolescents who use opioids may also struggle with academic decline, drop out of school early, be unable to maintain a job, and have relationship difficulties, especially with family members.

In this article, I describe the scope of OUD among adolescents, including epidemiology, clinical manifestations, screening tools, and treatment approaches.

Scope of the problem

According to the most recent Monitoring the Future survey of more than 42,500 8th, 10th, and 12th grade students, 2.7% of 12th graders reported prescription opioid misuse (reported in the survey as “narcotics other than heroin”) in the past year.² In addition, 0.4% of 12th graders reported heroin use over the same period.² Although the prevalence of opioid use among adolescents has been declining over the past 5 years,² it still represents a serious health crisis.

Part of the issue may relate to easier access to more potent opioids. For example, heroin available today can be >4 times purer than it was in the past. In 2002, the Drug Enforcement Administration reported that the average purity of retail heroin was 38%, with levels up to 71% in some areas of the northeastern United States.^3,4 This purer form can be inhaled, which reduces the need for injection and makes it more accessible to younger adolescents.

Between 1997 and 2012, the annual incidence of youth (age 15 to 19) hospitalizations for prescription opioid poisoning increased >170%.⁵ Approximately 6% to 9% of youth involved in risky opioid use develop OUD 6 to 12 months after starting to use opiods.^6-8

Continue to: In recent years...

In recent years, deaths from drug overdose have increased for all age groups; however, limited data is available regarding adolescent overdose deaths. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), from 2015 to 2016, drug overdose death rates for persons age 15 to 24 increased to 28%.⁹

How opioids work

Opioids activate specific transmembrane neuro­transmitter receptors, including mu, kappa, and delta, in the CNS and peripheral nervous system (PNS). This leads to activation of G protein–mediated intracellular signal transduction. Mainly it is activation of endogenous mu opioid receptors that mediates the reward, withdrawal, and analgesic effects of opioids. These effects depend on the location of mu receptors. In the CNS, activation of mu opioid receptors may cause miosis, respiratory depression, euphoria, and analgesia.¹⁰ 

Different opioids vary in terms of their half-life; for most opioids, the half-life ranges from 2 to 4 hours.¹⁰ Heroin has a half-life of 30 minutes, but due to active metabolites its duration of action is 4 to 5 hours. Opioid metabolites can be detected in urine toxicology within approximately 1 to 2 days since last use.¹⁰

Chronic opioid use is associated with neurologic effects that change the function of areas of the brain that control pleasure/reward, stress, decision-making, and more. This leads to cravings, continued substance use, and dependence.¹¹ After continued long-term use, patients report decreased euphoria, but typically they continue to use opioids to avoid withdrawal symptoms or worsening mood.

Criteria for opioid use disorder

In DSM-5, substance use disorders (SUDs)are no longer categorized as abuse or dependence.¹² For opioids, the diagnosis is OUD. The Table¹² outlines the DSM-5 criteria for OUD. Craving opioids is included for the first time in the OUD diagnosis. Having problems with the legal system is no longer considered a diagnostic criterion for OUD. 

Continue to: A vulnerable population

As defined by Erik Erikson’s psychosocial stages of development, adolescents struggle between establishing their own identity vs role confusion.¹³ In an attempt to relate to peers or give in to peer pressure, some adolescents start by experimenting with nicotine, alcohol, and/or marijuana; however, some may move on to using other illicit drugs.¹⁴ Risk factors for the development of SUDs include early onset of substance use and a rapid progression through stages of substance use from experimentation to regular use, risky use, and dependence.¹⁵ In our case study, Ms. L’s substance use followed a similar pattern. Further, the comorbidity of SUDs and other psychiatric disorders may add a layer of complexity when caring for adolescents. Box 1^16-20 describes the relationship between comorbid psychiatric disorders and SUDs in adolescents.

Box 1

Clinical manifestations

Common clinical manifestations of opioid use vary depending on when the patient is seen. An individual with OUD may appear acutely intoxicated, be in withdrawal, or show no effects. Chronic/prolonged use can lead to tolerance, such that a user needs to ingest larger amounts of the opioid to produce the same effects.

Acute intoxication can cause sedation, slurring of speech, and pinpoint pupils. Fresh injection sites may be visible on physical examination of IV users. The effects of acute intoxication usually depend on the half-life of the specific opioid and the individual’s tolerance.¹⁰ Tolerance to heroin can occur in 10 days and withdrawal can manifest in 3 to 7 hours after last use, depending on dose and purity.³ Tolerance can lead to unintentional overdose and death.

Withdrawal. Individuals experiencing withdrawal from opioids present with flu-like physical symptoms, including generalized body ache, rhinorrhea, diarrhea, goose bumps, lacrimation, and vomiting. Individuals also may experience irritability, restlessness, insomnia, anxiety, and depression during withdrawal.

Other manifestations. Excessive and chronic/prolonged opioid use can adversely impact socio-occupational functioning and cause academic decline in adolescents and youth. Personal relationships are significantly affected. Opioid users may have legal difficulties as a result of committing crimes such as theft, prostitution, or robbery in order to obtain opioids. 

Continue to: Screening for OUD

Several screening tools are available to assess adolescents for SUDs, including OUD.

CRAFFT is a 6-item, clinician-administered screening tool that has been approved by American Academy of Pediatrics’ Committee on Substance Abuse for adolescents and young adults age <21.^21-23 This commonly used tool can assess for alcohol, cannabis, and other drug use. A score ≥2 is considered positive for drug use, indicating that the individual would require further evaluation and assessment^22,23 (Figure). There is also a self-administered CRAFFT questionnaire that can be completed by the patient.

NIDA-modified ASSIST. The American Psychiatric Association has adapted the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)-modified ASSIST. One version is designated for parents/guardians to administer to their children (age 6 to 17), and one is designated for adolescents (age 11 to 17) to self-administer.^24,25 Each screening tool has 2 levels: Level 1 screens for substance use and other mental health symptoms, and Level 2 is more specific for substance use alone.

Drug Use Screening Inventory (DUSI) is a self-report questionnaire that has 149 items that assess the use of numerous drugs. It is designed to quantify the severity of consequences associated with drug and alcohol use.^26,27

Problem-Oriented Screening Instrument for Teenagers (POSIT) is a multidimensional tool that consists of 139 yes/no questions designed to explore adolescents’ (age 12 to 19 years) problem substance use and current functioning in other areas.^28,29

Continue to: Personal Experience Screening Questionnaire (PESQ)...

Personal Experience Screening Question­naire (PESQ) is a brief, 40-item, cost-effective, self-report questionnaire that can help identify adolescents (age 12 to 18) who should be referred for further evaluation.³⁰

Addressing treatment expectations

For an adolescent with OUD, treatment should begin in the least restrictive environment that is perceived as safe for the patient. An adolescent’s readiness and motivation to achieve and maintain abstinence are crucial. Treatment planning should include the adolescent as well as his/her family to ensure they are able to verbalize their expectations. Start with a definitive treatment plan that addresses an individual’s needs. The plan should provide structure and an understanding of treatment expectations. The treatment team should clarify the realistic plan and goals based on empirical and clinical evidence. Treatment goals should include interventions to strengthen interpersonal relationships and assist with rehabilitation, such as establishing academic and/or vocational goals. Addressing readiness and working on a patient’s motivation is extremely important for most of these interventions. 

In order for any intervention to be successful, clinicians need to establish and foster rapport with the adolescent. By law, substance use or behaviors related to substance use are not allowed to be shared outside the patient-clinician relationship, unless the adolescent gives consent or there are concerns that such behaviors might put the patient or others at risk. It is important to prime the adolescent and help them understand that any information pertaining to their safety or the safety of others may need to be shared outside the patient-clinician relationship.

Choosing an intervention

Less than 50% of a nationally representative sample of 345 addiction treatment programs serving adolescents and adults offer medications for treating OUD.³¹ Even in programs that offer pharmacotherapy, medications are significantly underutilized. Fewer than 30% of patients in addiction treatment programs receive medication, compared with 74% of patients receiving treatment for other mental health disorders.³¹ A review of the literature on adolescent treatment outcomes concluded that any form of treatment (psychotherapy with or without medication) is better than no treatment.^32,33

Psychotherapy may be used to treat OUD in adolescents. Several family therapies have been studied and are considered as critical psychotherapeutic interventions for treating SUDs, including structural family treatment and functional family therapy approaches.³⁴ An integrated behavioral and family therapy model is also recommended for adolescent patients with SUDs. Cognitive distortions and use of self-deprecatory statements are common among adolescents.³⁵ Therefore, using approaches of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), or CBT plus motivational enhancement therapy, also might be effective for this population.³⁶ The adolescent community reinforcement approach (A-CRA) is a behavioral treatment designed to help adolescents and their families learn how to lead a healthy and happy life without the use of drugs or alcohol by increasing access to social, familial, and educational/vocational reinforcers. Support groups and peer and family support should be encouraged as adjuncts to other interventions. In some areas, sober housing options for adolescents are also available.

Continue to: Harm-reduction strategies

Harm-reduction strategies. Although the primary goal of treatment for adolescents with OUD is to achieve and maintain abstinence from opioid use, implicit and explicit goals can be set. Short-term implicit goals may include harm-reduction strategies that emphasize decreasing the duration, frequency, and amount of substance use and limiting the chances of adverse effects, while the long-term explicit goal should be abstinence from opioid use.

Naloxone nasal spray is used as a harm-reduction strategy. It is an FDA-approved formulation that can reverse the effects of unintentional opioid overdoses and potentially prevent death from respiratory depression.³⁷ Other harm-reduction strategies include needle exchange programs, which provide sterile needles to individuals who inject drugs in an effort to prevent or reduce the transmission of human immunodeficiency virus and other bloodborne viruses that can be spread via shared injection equipment. Fentanyl testing strips allow opioid users to test for the presence fentanyl and fentanyl analogs in the unregulated “street” opioid supply.

Pharmacologic interventions. Because there is limited empirical evidence on the efficacy of medication-assisted treatment (MAT) for adolescents with OUD, clinicians need to rely on evidence from research and experience with adults. Unfortunately, MAT is offered to adolescents considerably less often than it is to adults. Feder et al³⁸ reported that only 2.4% of adolescents received MAT for heroin use and only 0.4% of adolescents received MAT for prescription opioid use, compared with 26.3% and 12% of adults, respectively.

Detoxification. Medications available for detoxification from opioids include opiates (such as methadone or buprenorphine) and clonidine (a central sympathomimetic). If the patient has used heroin for a short period (<1 year) and has no history of detoxification, consider a detoxification strategy with a longer-term taper (90 to 180 days) to allow for stabilization.

Maintenance treatment. Consider maintenance treatment for adolescents with a history of long-term opioid use and at least 2 prior short-term detoxification attempts or nonpharmacotherapy-based treatment within 12 months. Be sure to receive consent from a legal guardian and the patient. Maintenance treatment is usually recommended to continue for 1 to 6 years. Maintenance programs with longer durations have shown higher rates of abstinence, improved engagement, and retention in treatment.³⁹

Continue to: According to guidelines from...

According to guidelines from the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM), adolescents age >16 should be offered MAT; the first-line treatment is buprenorphine.⁴⁰ To avoid risks of abuse and diversion, a combination of buprenorphine/naloxone may be administered.

Maintenance with buprenorphine

In order to prescribe and dispense buprenorphine, clinicians need to obtain a waiver from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Before initiating buprenorphine, consider the type of opioid the individual used (short- or long-acting), the severity of the OUD, and the last reported use. The 3 phases of buprenorphine treatment are⁴¹:

• Induction phase. Buprenorphine can be initiated at 2 to 4 mg/d. Some patients may require up to 8 mg/d on the first day, which can be administered in divided doses.⁴² Evaluate and monitor patients carefully during the first few hours after the first dose. Patients should be in early withdrawal; otherwise, the buprenorphine might precipitate withdrawal. The induction phase can be completed in 2 to 4 days by titrating the dose so that the signs and symptoms of opioid withdrawal are minimal, and the patient is able to continue treatment. It may be helpful to have the patient’s legal guardian nearby in case the patient does not tolerate the medication or experiences withdrawal. The initial target dose for buprenorphine is approximately 12 to 16 mg/d.
• Stabilization phase. Patients no longer experience withdrawal symptoms and no longer have cravings. This phase can last 6 to 8 weeks. During this phase, patients should be seen weekly and doses should be adjusted if necessary. As a partial mu agonist, buprenorphine does not activate mu receptors fully and reaches a ceiling effect. Hence, doses >24 mg/d have limited added agonist properties.
• Maintenance phase. Because discontinuation of buprenorphine is associated with high relapse rates, patients may need to be maintained long-term on their stabilization dose, and for some patients, the length of time could be indefinite.³⁹ During this phase, patients continue to undergo follow-up, but do so less frequently.

Methadone maintenance is generally not recommended for individuals age <18.

Preventing opioid diversion

Prescription medications that are kept in the home are a substantial source of opioids for adolescents. In 2014, 56% of 12th graders who did not need medications for medical purposes were able to acquire them from their friends or relatives; 36% of 12th graders used their own prescriptions.²¹ Limiting adolescents’ access to prescription opioids is the first line of prevention. Box 2 describes interventions and strategies to limit adolescents’ access to opioids.

Box 2

CASE CONTINUED

Ms. L is initially prescribed, clonidine, 0.1 mg every 6 hours, to address opioid withdrawal. Clonidine is then tapered and maintained at 0.1 mg twice a day for irritability and impulse control. She is also prescribed sertraline, 100 mg/d, for depression and anxiety, and trazodone, 75 mg as needed at night, to assist with sleep.

Continue to: Following inpatient hospitalization...

Following inpatient hospitalization, during 12 weeks of partial hospital treatment, Ms. L participates in individual psychotherapy sessions 5 days/week; family therapy sessions once a week; and experiential therapy along with group sessions with other peers. She undergoes medication evaluations and adjustments on a weekly basis. Ms. L is now working at a store and is pursuing a high school equivalency certificate. She manages to avoid high-risk behaviors, although she reports having occasional cravings. Ms. L is actively involved in Narcotics Anonymous and has a sponsor. She has reconciled with her mother and moved back home, so she can stay away from her former acquaintances who are still using.

Bottom Line

Adolescents with opioid use disorder can benefit from an individualized treatment plan that includes psychosocial interventions, pharmacotherapy, or a combination of the two. Treatment planning should include the adolescent and his/her family to ensure they are able to verbalize their expectations. Treatment should focus on interventions that strengthen interpersonal relationships and assist with rehabilitation. Ongoing follow-up care is necessary for maintaining abstinence.

Related Resource

• Patkar AA, Weisler RH. Opioid abuse and overdose: Keep your patients safe. Current Psychiatry. 2017;16(8):8-12,14-16.

Drug Brand Names

Buprenorphine • Subutex, Sublocade
Buprenorphine/naloxone • Suboxone
Clonidine • Clorpres
Methadone • Methadose
Naloxone • Narcan
Oxycodone • OxyContin
Sertraline • Zoloft
Tramadol • Ultram
Trazodone • Desyrel, Oleptro

Ms. L, age 17, seeks treatment because she has an ongoing struggle with multiple substances, including benzodiazepines, heroin, alcohol, cannabis, and prescription opioids.

She reports that she was 13 when she first used a prescription opioid that was not prescribed for her. She also reports engaging in unsafe sexual practices while using these substances, and has been diagnosed and treated for a sexually transmitted disease. She dropped out of school and is estranged from her family. She says that for a long time she has felt depressed and that she uses drugs to “self-medicate my emotions.” She endorses high anxiety and lack of motivation. Ms. L also reports having several criminal charges for theft, assault, and exchanging sex for drugs. She has undergone 3 admissions for detoxification, but promptly resumed using drugs, primarily heroin and oxycodone, immediately after discharge. Ms. L meets DSM-5 criteria for opioid use disorder (OUD).

Ms. L’s case illustrates a disturbing trend in the current opioid epidemic in the United States. Nearly 11.8 million individuals age ≥12 reported misuse of opioids in the last year.¹ Adolescents who misuse prescription or illicit opioids are more likely to be involved with the legal system due to truancy, running away from home, physical altercations, prostitution, exchanging sex for drugs, robbery, and gang involvement. Adolescents who use opioids may also struggle with academic decline, drop out of school early, be unable to maintain a job, and have relationship difficulties, especially with family members.

In this article, I describe the scope of OUD among adolescents, including epidemiology, clinical manifestations, screening tools, and treatment approaches.

Scope of the problem

According to the most recent Monitoring the Future survey of more than 42,500 8th, 10th, and 12th grade students, 2.7% of 12th graders reported prescription opioid misuse (reported in the survey as “narcotics other than heroin”) in the past year.² In addition, 0.4% of 12th graders reported heroin use over the same period.² Although the prevalence of opioid use among adolescents has been declining over the past 5 years,² it still represents a serious health crisis.

Part of the issue may relate to easier access to more potent opioids. For example, heroin available today can be >4 times purer than it was in the past. In 2002, the Drug Enforcement Administration reported that the average purity of retail heroin was 38%, with levels up to 71% in some areas of the northeastern United States.^3,4 This purer form can be inhaled, which reduces the need for injection and makes it more accessible to younger adolescents.

Between 1997 and 2012, the annual incidence of youth (age 15 to 19) hospitalizations for prescription opioid poisoning increased >170%.⁵ Approximately 6% to 9% of youth involved in risky opioid use develop OUD 6 to 12 months after starting to use opiods.^6-8

Continue to: In recent years...

In recent years, deaths from drug overdose have increased for all age groups; however, limited data is available regarding adolescent overdose deaths. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), from 2015 to 2016, drug overdose death rates for persons age 15 to 24 increased to 28%.⁹

How opioids work

Opioids activate specific transmembrane neuro­transmitter receptors, including mu, kappa, and delta, in the CNS and peripheral nervous system (PNS). This leads to activation of G protein–mediated intracellular signal transduction. Mainly it is activation of endogenous mu opioid receptors that mediates the reward, withdrawal, and analgesic effects of opioids. These effects depend on the location of mu receptors. In the CNS, activation of mu opioid receptors may cause miosis, respiratory depression, euphoria, and analgesia.¹⁰ 

Different opioids vary in terms of their half-life; for most opioids, the half-life ranges from 2 to 4 hours.¹⁰ Heroin has a half-life of 30 minutes, but due to active metabolites its duration of action is 4 to 5 hours. Opioid metabolites can be detected in urine toxicology within approximately 1 to 2 days since last use.¹⁰

Chronic opioid use is associated with neurologic effects that change the function of areas of the brain that control pleasure/reward, stress, decision-making, and more. This leads to cravings, continued substance use, and dependence.¹¹ After continued long-term use, patients report decreased euphoria, but typically they continue to use opioids to avoid withdrawal symptoms or worsening mood.

Criteria for opioid use disorder

In DSM-5, substance use disorders (SUDs)are no longer categorized as abuse or dependence.¹² For opioids, the diagnosis is OUD. The Table¹² outlines the DSM-5 criteria for OUD. Craving opioids is included for the first time in the OUD diagnosis. Having problems with the legal system is no longer considered a diagnostic criterion for OUD. 

Continue to: A vulnerable population

As defined by Erik Erikson’s psychosocial stages of development, adolescents struggle between establishing their own identity vs role confusion.¹³ In an attempt to relate to peers or give in to peer pressure, some adolescents start by experimenting with nicotine, alcohol, and/or marijuana; however, some may move on to using other illicit drugs.¹⁴ Risk factors for the development of SUDs include early onset of substance use and a rapid progression through stages of substance use from experimentation to regular use, risky use, and dependence.¹⁵ In our case study, Ms. L’s substance use followed a similar pattern. Further, the comorbidity of SUDs and other psychiatric disorders may add a layer of complexity when caring for adolescents. Box 1^16-20 describes the relationship between comorbid psychiatric disorders and SUDs in adolescents.

Box 1

Clinical manifestations

Common clinical manifestations of opioid use vary depending on when the patient is seen. An individual with OUD may appear acutely intoxicated, be in withdrawal, or show no effects. Chronic/prolonged use can lead to tolerance, such that a user needs to ingest larger amounts of the opioid to produce the same effects.

Acute intoxication can cause sedation, slurring of speech, and pinpoint pupils. Fresh injection sites may be visible on physical examination of IV users. The effects of acute intoxication usually depend on the half-life of the specific opioid and the individual’s tolerance.¹⁰ Tolerance to heroin can occur in 10 days and withdrawal can manifest in 3 to 7 hours after last use, depending on dose and purity.³ Tolerance can lead to unintentional overdose and death.

Withdrawal. Individuals experiencing withdrawal from opioids present with flu-like physical symptoms, including generalized body ache, rhinorrhea, diarrhea, goose bumps, lacrimation, and vomiting. Individuals also may experience irritability, restlessness, insomnia, anxiety, and depression during withdrawal.

Other manifestations. Excessive and chronic/prolonged opioid use can adversely impact socio-occupational functioning and cause academic decline in adolescents and youth. Personal relationships are significantly affected. Opioid users may have legal difficulties as a result of committing crimes such as theft, prostitution, or robbery in order to obtain opioids. 

Continue to: Screening for OUD

Several screening tools are available to assess adolescents for SUDs, including OUD.

CRAFFT is a 6-item, clinician-administered screening tool that has been approved by American Academy of Pediatrics’ Committee on Substance Abuse for adolescents and young adults age <21.^21-23 This commonly used tool can assess for alcohol, cannabis, and other drug use. A score ≥2 is considered positive for drug use, indicating that the individual would require further evaluation and assessment^22,23 (Figure). There is also a self-administered CRAFFT questionnaire that can be completed by the patient.

NIDA-modified ASSIST. The American Psychiatric Association has adapted the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)-modified ASSIST. One version is designated for parents/guardians to administer to their children (age 6 to 17), and one is designated for adolescents (age 11 to 17) to self-administer.^24,25 Each screening tool has 2 levels: Level 1 screens for substance use and other mental health symptoms, and Level 2 is more specific for substance use alone.

Drug Use Screening Inventory (DUSI) is a self-report questionnaire that has 149 items that assess the use of numerous drugs. It is designed to quantify the severity of consequences associated with drug and alcohol use.^26,27

Problem-Oriented Screening Instrument for Teenagers (POSIT) is a multidimensional tool that consists of 139 yes/no questions designed to explore adolescents’ (age 12 to 19 years) problem substance use and current functioning in other areas.^28,29

Continue to: Personal Experience Screening Questionnaire (PESQ)...

Personal Experience Screening Question­naire (PESQ) is a brief, 40-item, cost-effective, self-report questionnaire that can help identify adolescents (age 12 to 18) who should be referred for further evaluation.³⁰

Addressing treatment expectations

For an adolescent with OUD, treatment should begin in the least restrictive environment that is perceived as safe for the patient. An adolescent’s readiness and motivation to achieve and maintain abstinence are crucial. Treatment planning should include the adolescent as well as his/her family to ensure they are able to verbalize their expectations. Start with a definitive treatment plan that addresses an individual’s needs. The plan should provide structure and an understanding of treatment expectations. The treatment team should clarify the realistic plan and goals based on empirical and clinical evidence. Treatment goals should include interventions to strengthen interpersonal relationships and assist with rehabilitation, such as establishing academic and/or vocational goals. Addressing readiness and working on a patient’s motivation is extremely important for most of these interventions. 

In order for any intervention to be successful, clinicians need to establish and foster rapport with the adolescent. By law, substance use or behaviors related to substance use are not allowed to be shared outside the patient-clinician relationship, unless the adolescent gives consent or there are concerns that such behaviors might put the patient or others at risk. It is important to prime the adolescent and help them understand that any information pertaining to their safety or the safety of others may need to be shared outside the patient-clinician relationship.

Choosing an intervention

Less than 50% of a nationally representative sample of 345 addiction treatment programs serving adolescents and adults offer medications for treating OUD.³¹ Even in programs that offer pharmacotherapy, medications are significantly underutilized. Fewer than 30% of patients in addiction treatment programs receive medication, compared with 74% of patients receiving treatment for other mental health disorders.³¹ A review of the literature on adolescent treatment outcomes concluded that any form of treatment (psychotherapy with or without medication) is better than no treatment.^32,33

Psychotherapy may be used to treat OUD in adolescents. Several family therapies have been studied and are considered as critical psychotherapeutic interventions for treating SUDs, including structural family treatment and functional family therapy approaches.³⁴ An integrated behavioral and family therapy model is also recommended for adolescent patients with SUDs. Cognitive distortions and use of self-deprecatory statements are common among adolescents.³⁵ Therefore, using approaches of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), or CBT plus motivational enhancement therapy, also might be effective for this population.³⁶ The adolescent community reinforcement approach (A-CRA) is a behavioral treatment designed to help adolescents and their families learn how to lead a healthy and happy life without the use of drugs or alcohol by increasing access to social, familial, and educational/vocational reinforcers. Support groups and peer and family support should be encouraged as adjuncts to other interventions. In some areas, sober housing options for adolescents are also available.

Continue to: Harm-reduction strategies

Harm-reduction strategies. Although the primary goal of treatment for adolescents with OUD is to achieve and maintain abstinence from opioid use, implicit and explicit goals can be set. Short-term implicit goals may include harm-reduction strategies that emphasize decreasing the duration, frequency, and amount of substance use and limiting the chances of adverse effects, while the long-term explicit goal should be abstinence from opioid use.

Naloxone nasal spray is used as a harm-reduction strategy. It is an FDA-approved formulation that can reverse the effects of unintentional opioid overdoses and potentially prevent death from respiratory depression.³⁷ Other harm-reduction strategies include needle exchange programs, which provide sterile needles to individuals who inject drugs in an effort to prevent or reduce the transmission of human immunodeficiency virus and other bloodborne viruses that can be spread via shared injection equipment. Fentanyl testing strips allow opioid users to test for the presence fentanyl and fentanyl analogs in the unregulated “street” opioid supply.

Pharmacologic interventions. Because there is limited empirical evidence on the efficacy of medication-assisted treatment (MAT) for adolescents with OUD, clinicians need to rely on evidence from research and experience with adults. Unfortunately, MAT is offered to adolescents considerably less often than it is to adults. Feder et al³⁸ reported that only 2.4% of adolescents received MAT for heroin use and only 0.4% of adolescents received MAT for prescription opioid use, compared with 26.3% and 12% of adults, respectively.

Detoxification. Medications available for detoxification from opioids include opiates (such as methadone or buprenorphine) and clonidine (a central sympathomimetic). If the patient has used heroin for a short period (<1 year) and has no history of detoxification, consider a detoxification strategy with a longer-term taper (90 to 180 days) to allow for stabilization.

Maintenance treatment. Consider maintenance treatment for adolescents with a history of long-term opioid use and at least 2 prior short-term detoxification attempts or nonpharmacotherapy-based treatment within 12 months. Be sure to receive consent from a legal guardian and the patient. Maintenance treatment is usually recommended to continue for 1 to 6 years. Maintenance programs with longer durations have shown higher rates of abstinence, improved engagement, and retention in treatment.³⁹

Continue to: According to guidelines from...

According to guidelines from the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM), adolescents age >16 should be offered MAT; the first-line treatment is buprenorphine.⁴⁰ To avoid risks of abuse and diversion, a combination of buprenorphine/naloxone may be administered.

Maintenance with buprenorphine

In order to prescribe and dispense buprenorphine, clinicians need to obtain a waiver from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Before initiating buprenorphine, consider the type of opioid the individual used (short- or long-acting), the severity of the OUD, and the last reported use. The 3 phases of buprenorphine treatment are⁴¹:

• Induction phase. Buprenorphine can be initiated at 2 to 4 mg/d. Some patients may require up to 8 mg/d on the first day, which can be administered in divided doses.⁴² Evaluate and monitor patients carefully during the first few hours after the first dose. Patients should be in early withdrawal; otherwise, the buprenorphine might precipitate withdrawal. The induction phase can be completed in 2 to 4 days by titrating the dose so that the signs and symptoms of opioid withdrawal are minimal, and the patient is able to continue treatment. It may be helpful to have the patient’s legal guardian nearby in case the patient does not tolerate the medication or experiences withdrawal. The initial target dose for buprenorphine is approximately 12 to 16 mg/d.
• Stabilization phase. Patients no longer experience withdrawal symptoms and no longer have cravings. This phase can last 6 to 8 weeks. During this phase, patients should be seen weekly and doses should be adjusted if necessary. As a partial mu agonist, buprenorphine does not activate mu receptors fully and reaches a ceiling effect. Hence, doses >24 mg/d have limited added agonist properties.
• Maintenance phase. Because discontinuation of buprenorphine is associated with high relapse rates, patients may need to be maintained long-term on their stabilization dose, and for some patients, the length of time could be indefinite.³⁹ During this phase, patients continue to undergo follow-up, but do so less frequently.

Methadone maintenance is generally not recommended for individuals age <18.

Preventing opioid diversion

Prescription medications that are kept in the home are a substantial source of opioids for adolescents. In 2014, 56% of 12th graders who did not need medications for medical purposes were able to acquire them from their friends or relatives; 36% of 12th graders used their own prescriptions.²¹ Limiting adolescents’ access to prescription opioids is the first line of prevention. Box 2 describes interventions and strategies to limit adolescents’ access to opioids.

Box 2

CASE CONTINUED

Ms. L is initially prescribed, clonidine, 0.1 mg every 6 hours, to address opioid withdrawal. Clonidine is then tapered and maintained at 0.1 mg twice a day for irritability and impulse control. She is also prescribed sertraline, 100 mg/d, for depression and anxiety, and trazodone, 75 mg as needed at night, to assist with sleep.

Continue to: Following inpatient hospitalization...

Following inpatient hospitalization, during 12 weeks of partial hospital treatment, Ms. L participates in individual psychotherapy sessions 5 days/week; family therapy sessions once a week; and experiential therapy along with group sessions with other peers. She undergoes medication evaluations and adjustments on a weekly basis. Ms. L is now working at a store and is pursuing a high school equivalency certificate. She manages to avoid high-risk behaviors, although she reports having occasional cravings. Ms. L is actively involved in Narcotics Anonymous and has a sponsor. She has reconciled with her mother and moved back home, so she can stay away from her former acquaintances who are still using.

Bottom Line

Adolescents with opioid use disorder can benefit from an individualized treatment plan that includes psychosocial interventions, pharmacotherapy, or a combination of the two. Treatment planning should include the adolescent and his/her family to ensure they are able to verbalize their expectations. Treatment should focus on interventions that strengthen interpersonal relationships and assist with rehabilitation. Ongoing follow-up care is necessary for maintaining abstinence.

Related Resource

• Patkar AA, Weisler RH. Opioid abuse and overdose: Keep your patients safe. Current Psychiatry. 2017;16(8):8-12,14-16.

Drug Brand Names

Buprenorphine • Subutex, Sublocade
Buprenorphine/naloxone • Suboxone
Clonidine • Clorpres
Methadone • Methadose
Naloxone • Narcan
Oxycodone • OxyContin
Sertraline • Zoloft
Tramadol • Ultram
Trazodone • Desyrel, Oleptro

Ms. L, age 17, seeks treatment because she has an ongoing struggle with multiple substances, including benzodiazepines, heroin, alcohol, cannabis, and prescription opioids.

She reports that she was 13 when she first used a prescription opioid that was not prescribed for her. She also reports engaging in unsafe sexual practices while using these substances, and has been diagnosed and treated for a sexually transmitted disease. She dropped out of school and is estranged from her family. She says that for a long time she has felt depressed and that she uses drugs to “self-medicate my emotions.” She endorses high anxiety and lack of motivation. Ms. L also reports having several criminal charges for theft, assault, and exchanging sex for drugs. She has undergone 3 admissions for detoxification, but promptly resumed using drugs, primarily heroin and oxycodone, immediately after discharge. Ms. L meets DSM-5 criteria for opioid use disorder (OUD).

Ms. L’s case illustrates a disturbing trend in the current opioid epidemic in the United States. Nearly 11.8 million individuals age ≥12 reported misuse of opioids in the last year.¹ Adolescents who misuse prescription or illicit opioids are more likely to be involved with the legal system due to truancy, running away from home, physical altercations, prostitution, exchanging sex for drugs, robbery, and gang involvement. Adolescents who use opioids may also struggle with academic decline, drop out of school early, be unable to maintain a job, and have relationship difficulties, especially with family members.

In this article, I describe the scope of OUD among adolescents, including epidemiology, clinical manifestations, screening tools, and treatment approaches.

Scope of the problem

According to the most recent Monitoring the Future survey of more than 42,500 8th, 10th, and 12th grade students, 2.7% of 12th graders reported prescription opioid misuse (reported in the survey as “narcotics other than heroin”) in the past year.² In addition, 0.4% of 12th graders reported heroin use over the same period.² Although the prevalence of opioid use among adolescents has been declining over the past 5 years,² it still represents a serious health crisis.

Part of the issue may relate to easier access to more potent opioids. For example, heroin available today can be >4 times purer than it was in the past. In 2002, the Drug Enforcement Administration reported that the average purity of retail heroin was 38%, with levels up to 71% in some areas of the northeastern United States.^3,4 This purer form can be inhaled, which reduces the need for injection and makes it more accessible to younger adolescents.

Between 1997 and 2012, the annual incidence of youth (age 15 to 19) hospitalizations for prescription opioid poisoning increased >170%.⁵ Approximately 6% to 9% of youth involved in risky opioid use develop OUD 6 to 12 months after starting to use opiods.^6-8

Continue to: In recent years...

In recent years, deaths from drug overdose have increased for all age groups; however, limited data is available regarding adolescent overdose deaths. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), from 2015 to 2016, drug overdose death rates for persons age 15 to 24 increased to 28%.⁹

How opioids work

Opioids activate specific transmembrane neuro­transmitter receptors, including mu, kappa, and delta, in the CNS and peripheral nervous system (PNS). This leads to activation of G protein–mediated intracellular signal transduction. Mainly it is activation of endogenous mu opioid receptors that mediates the reward, withdrawal, and analgesic effects of opioids. These effects depend on the location of mu receptors. In the CNS, activation of mu opioid receptors may cause miosis, respiratory depression, euphoria, and analgesia.¹⁰ 

Different opioids vary in terms of their half-life; for most opioids, the half-life ranges from 2 to 4 hours.¹⁰ Heroin has a half-life of 30 minutes, but due to active metabolites its duration of action is 4 to 5 hours. Opioid metabolites can be detected in urine toxicology within approximately 1 to 2 days since last use.¹⁰

Chronic opioid use is associated with neurologic effects that change the function of areas of the brain that control pleasure/reward, stress, decision-making, and more. This leads to cravings, continued substance use, and dependence.¹¹ After continued long-term use, patients report decreased euphoria, but typically they continue to use opioids to avoid withdrawal symptoms or worsening mood.

Criteria for opioid use disorder

In DSM-5, substance use disorders (SUDs)are no longer categorized as abuse or dependence.¹² For opioids, the diagnosis is OUD. The Table¹² outlines the DSM-5 criteria for OUD. Craving opioids is included for the first time in the OUD diagnosis. Having problems with the legal system is no longer considered a diagnostic criterion for OUD. 

Continue to: A vulnerable population

As defined by Erik Erikson’s psychosocial stages of development, adolescents struggle between establishing their own identity vs role confusion.¹³ In an attempt to relate to peers or give in to peer pressure, some adolescents start by experimenting with nicotine, alcohol, and/or marijuana; however, some may move on to using other illicit drugs.¹⁴ Risk factors for the development of SUDs include early onset of substance use and a rapid progression through stages of substance use from experimentation to regular use, risky use, and dependence.¹⁵ In our case study, Ms. L’s substance use followed a similar pattern. Further, the comorbidity of SUDs and other psychiatric disorders may add a layer of complexity when caring for adolescents. Box 1^16-20 describes the relationship between comorbid psychiatric disorders and SUDs in adolescents.

Box 1

Clinical manifestations

Common clinical manifestations of opioid use vary depending on when the patient is seen. An individual with OUD may appear acutely intoxicated, be in withdrawal, or show no effects. Chronic/prolonged use can lead to tolerance, such that a user needs to ingest larger amounts of the opioid to produce the same effects.

Acute intoxication can cause sedation, slurring of speech, and pinpoint pupils. Fresh injection sites may be visible on physical examination of IV users. The effects of acute intoxication usually depend on the half-life of the specific opioid and the individual’s tolerance.¹⁰ Tolerance to heroin can occur in 10 days and withdrawal can manifest in 3 to 7 hours after last use, depending on dose and purity.³ Tolerance can lead to unintentional overdose and death.

Withdrawal. Individuals experiencing withdrawal from opioids present with flu-like physical symptoms, including generalized body ache, rhinorrhea, diarrhea, goose bumps, lacrimation, and vomiting. Individuals also may experience irritability, restlessness, insomnia, anxiety, and depression during withdrawal.

Other manifestations. Excessive and chronic/prolonged opioid use can adversely impact socio-occupational functioning and cause academic decline in adolescents and youth. Personal relationships are significantly affected. Opioid users may have legal difficulties as a result of committing crimes such as theft, prostitution, or robbery in order to obtain opioids. 

Continue to: Screening for OUD

Several screening tools are available to assess adolescents for SUDs, including OUD.

CRAFFT is a 6-item, clinician-administered screening tool that has been approved by American Academy of Pediatrics’ Committee on Substance Abuse for adolescents and young adults age <21.^21-23 This commonly used tool can assess for alcohol, cannabis, and other drug use. A score ≥2 is considered positive for drug use, indicating that the individual would require further evaluation and assessment^22,23 (Figure). There is also a self-administered CRAFFT questionnaire that can be completed by the patient.

NIDA-modified ASSIST. The American Psychiatric Association has adapted the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)-modified ASSIST. One version is designated for parents/guardians to administer to their children (age 6 to 17), and one is designated for adolescents (age 11 to 17) to self-administer.^24,25 Each screening tool has 2 levels: Level 1 screens for substance use and other mental health symptoms, and Level 2 is more specific for substance use alone.

Drug Use Screening Inventory (DUSI) is a self-report questionnaire that has 149 items that assess the use of numerous drugs. It is designed to quantify the severity of consequences associated with drug and alcohol use.^26,27

Problem-Oriented Screening Instrument for Teenagers (POSIT) is a multidimensional tool that consists of 139 yes/no questions designed to explore adolescents’ (age 12 to 19 years) problem substance use and current functioning in other areas.^28,29

Continue to: Personal Experience Screening Questionnaire (PESQ)...

Personal Experience Screening Question­naire (PESQ) is a brief, 40-item, cost-effective, self-report questionnaire that can help identify adolescents (age 12 to 18) who should be referred for further evaluation.³⁰

Addressing treatment expectations

For an adolescent with OUD, treatment should begin in the least restrictive environment that is perceived as safe for the patient. An adolescent’s readiness and motivation to achieve and maintain abstinence are crucial. Treatment planning should include the adolescent as well as his/her family to ensure they are able to verbalize their expectations. Start with a definitive treatment plan that addresses an individual’s needs. The plan should provide structure and an understanding of treatment expectations. The treatment team should clarify the realistic plan and goals based on empirical and clinical evidence. Treatment goals should include interventions to strengthen interpersonal relationships and assist with rehabilitation, such as establishing academic and/or vocational goals. Addressing readiness and working on a patient’s motivation is extremely important for most of these interventions. 

In order for any intervention to be successful, clinicians need to establish and foster rapport with the adolescent. By law, substance use or behaviors related to substance use are not allowed to be shared outside the patient-clinician relationship, unless the adolescent gives consent or there are concerns that such behaviors might put the patient or others at risk. It is important to prime the adolescent and help them understand that any information pertaining to their safety or the safety of others may need to be shared outside the patient-clinician relationship.

Choosing an intervention

Less than 50% of a nationally representative sample of 345 addiction treatment programs serving adolescents and adults offer medications for treating OUD.³¹ Even in programs that offer pharmacotherapy, medications are significantly underutilized. Fewer than 30% of patients in addiction treatment programs receive medication, compared with 74% of patients receiving treatment for other mental health disorders.³¹ A review of the literature on adolescent treatment outcomes concluded that any form of treatment (psychotherapy with or without medication) is better than no treatment.^32,33

Psychotherapy may be used to treat OUD in adolescents. Several family therapies have been studied and are considered as critical psychotherapeutic interventions for treating SUDs, including structural family treatment and functional family therapy approaches.³⁴ An integrated behavioral and family therapy model is also recommended for adolescent patients with SUDs. Cognitive distortions and use of self-deprecatory statements are common among adolescents.³⁵ Therefore, using approaches of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), or CBT plus motivational enhancement therapy, also might be effective for this population.³⁶ The adolescent community reinforcement approach (A-CRA) is a behavioral treatment designed to help adolescents and their families learn how to lead a healthy and happy life without the use of drugs or alcohol by increasing access to social, familial, and educational/vocational reinforcers. Support groups and peer and family support should be encouraged as adjuncts to other interventions. In some areas, sober housing options for adolescents are also available.

Continue to: Harm-reduction strategies

Harm-reduction strategies. Although the primary goal of treatment for adolescents with OUD is to achieve and maintain abstinence from opioid use, implicit and explicit goals can be set. Short-term implicit goals may include harm-reduction strategies that emphasize decreasing the duration, frequency, and amount of substance use and limiting the chances of adverse effects, while the long-term explicit goal should be abstinence from opioid use.

Naloxone nasal spray is used as a harm-reduction strategy. It is an FDA-approved formulation that can reverse the effects of unintentional opioid overdoses and potentially prevent death from respiratory depression.³⁷ Other harm-reduction strategies include needle exchange programs, which provide sterile needles to individuals who inject drugs in an effort to prevent or reduce the transmission of human immunodeficiency virus and other bloodborne viruses that can be spread via shared injection equipment. Fentanyl testing strips allow opioid users to test for the presence fentanyl and fentanyl analogs in the unregulated “street” opioid supply.

Pharmacologic interventions. Because there is limited empirical evidence on the efficacy of medication-assisted treatment (MAT) for adolescents with OUD, clinicians need to rely on evidence from research and experience with adults. Unfortunately, MAT is offered to adolescents considerably less often than it is to adults. Feder et al³⁸ reported that only 2.4% of adolescents received MAT for heroin use and only 0.4% of adolescents received MAT for prescription opioid use, compared with 26.3% and 12% of adults, respectively.

Detoxification. Medications available for detoxification from opioids include opiates (such as methadone or buprenorphine) and clonidine (a central sympathomimetic). If the patient has used heroin for a short period (<1 year) and has no history of detoxification, consider a detoxification strategy with a longer-term taper (90 to 180 days) to allow for stabilization.

Maintenance treatment. Consider maintenance treatment for adolescents with a history of long-term opioid use and at least 2 prior short-term detoxification attempts or nonpharmacotherapy-based treatment within 12 months. Be sure to receive consent from a legal guardian and the patient. Maintenance treatment is usually recommended to continue for 1 to 6 years. Maintenance programs with longer durations have shown higher rates of abstinence, improved engagement, and retention in treatment.³⁹

Continue to: According to guidelines from...

According to guidelines from the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM), adolescents age >16 should be offered MAT; the first-line treatment is buprenorphine.⁴⁰ To avoid risks of abuse and diversion, a combination of buprenorphine/naloxone may be administered.

Maintenance with buprenorphine

In order to prescribe and dispense buprenorphine, clinicians need to obtain a waiver from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Before initiating buprenorphine, consider the type of opioid the individual used (short- or long-acting), the severity of the OUD, and the last reported use. The 3 phases of buprenorphine treatment are⁴¹:

• Induction phase. Buprenorphine can be initiated at 2 to 4 mg/d. Some patients may require up to 8 mg/d on the first day, which can be administered in divided doses.⁴² Evaluate and monitor patients carefully during the first few hours after the first dose. Patients should be in early withdrawal; otherwise, the buprenorphine might precipitate withdrawal. The induction phase can be completed in 2 to 4 days by titrating the dose so that the signs and symptoms of opioid withdrawal are minimal, and the patient is able to continue treatment. It may be helpful to have the patient’s legal guardian nearby in case the patient does not tolerate the medication or experiences withdrawal. The initial target dose for buprenorphine is approximately 12 to 16 mg/d.
• Stabilization phase. Patients no longer experience withdrawal symptoms and no longer have cravings. This phase can last 6 to 8 weeks. During this phase, patients should be seen weekly and doses should be adjusted if necessary. As a partial mu agonist, buprenorphine does not activate mu receptors fully and reaches a ceiling effect. Hence, doses >24 mg/d have limited added agonist properties.
• Maintenance phase. Because discontinuation of buprenorphine is associated with high relapse rates, patients may need to be maintained long-term on their stabilization dose, and for some patients, the length of time could be indefinite.³⁹ During this phase, patients continue to undergo follow-up, but do so less frequently.

Methadone maintenance is generally not recommended for individuals age <18.

Preventing opioid diversion

Prescription medications that are kept in the home are a substantial source of opioids for adolescents. In 2014, 56% of 12th graders who did not need medications for medical purposes were able to acquire them from their friends or relatives; 36% of 12th graders used their own prescriptions.²¹ Limiting adolescents’ access to prescription opioids is the first line of prevention. Box 2 describes interventions and strategies to limit adolescents’ access to opioids.

Box 2

CASE CONTINUED

Ms. L is initially prescribed, clonidine, 0.1 mg every 6 hours, to address opioid withdrawal. Clonidine is then tapered and maintained at 0.1 mg twice a day for irritability and impulse control. She is also prescribed sertraline, 100 mg/d, for depression and anxiety, and trazodone, 75 mg as needed at night, to assist with sleep.

Continue to: Following inpatient hospitalization...

Following inpatient hospitalization, during 12 weeks of partial hospital treatment, Ms. L participates in individual psychotherapy sessions 5 days/week; family therapy sessions once a week; and experiential therapy along with group sessions with other peers. She undergoes medication evaluations and adjustments on a weekly basis. Ms. L is now working at a store and is pursuing a high school equivalency certificate. She manages to avoid high-risk behaviors, although she reports having occasional cravings. Ms. L is actively involved in Narcotics Anonymous and has a sponsor. She has reconciled with her mother and moved back home, so she can stay away from her former acquaintances who are still using.

Bottom Line

Adolescents with opioid use disorder can benefit from an individualized treatment plan that includes psychosocial interventions, pharmacotherapy, or a combination of the two. Treatment planning should include the adolescent and his/her family to ensure they are able to verbalize their expectations. Treatment should focus on interventions that strengthen interpersonal relationships and assist with rehabilitation. Ongoing follow-up care is necessary for maintaining abstinence.

Related Resource

• Patkar AA, Weisler RH. Opioid abuse and overdose: Keep your patients safe. Current Psychiatry. 2017;16(8):8-12,14-16.

Drug Brand Names

Buprenorphine • Subutex, Sublocade
Buprenorphine/naloxone • Suboxone
Clonidine • Clorpres
Methadone • Methadose
Naloxone • Narcan
Oxycodone • OxyContin
Sertraline • Zoloft
Tramadol • Ultram
Trazodone • Desyrel, Oleptro

Among patients with chronic migraine, dependent personality trait is associated with failure to respond to onabotulinumtoxin A, according to research published in the January issue of Headache. The research may be the first to show that personality traits predict response to onabotulinumtoxin A in this population.

“These findings point out that conducting an evaluation of personality traits in patients with chronic migraine might be helpful in the prediction of the course and election of the treatment, as well as identifying patients who might benefit from a multidisciplinary approach,” wrote Alicia Gonzalez-Martinez, MD, of the Hospital Universitario de La Princesa and Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de La Princesa in Madrid and colleagues. “Categorical questionnaires such as the Salamanca screening test seem to be useful for this purpose.”
 

Researchers used ICD-10 personality criteria

Personality patterns in patients with migraine and other primary headaches have been the subject of decades of research. Munoz et al. found that certain personality traits are associated with migraine and chronic migraine, and this association may influence clinical management and treatment. The effect of personality traits on response to treatment, however, had not been studied previously.

Dr. Gonzalez-Martinez and colleagues hypothesized that cluster C traits (e.g., obsessive-compulsive, dependent, and anxious), as defined by ICD-10, are associated with nonresponse to onabotulinumtoxin A. To test this hypothesis, they conducted a case-control observational study in a cohort of patients with chronic migraine. Eligible patients presented to one of two headache units of a tertiary hospital between January and May 2018. The investigators obtained a complete headache history and demographic information from each patient. Patients had at least two treatment cycles of onabotulinumtoxin A. Dr. Gonzalez-Martinez and colleagues defined treatment response as a reduction in the number of monthly migraine days of at least 50% after at least two treatment cycles.

The investigators assessed participants’ personality traits by administering the Salamanca test, a brief categorical inventory that examines 11 personality traits using 22 questions. Patients completed the test at the beginning of the study period and before they were classified as responders or nonresponders.
 

Medication overuse was a potential confounder

The study population included 112 patients with chronic migraine. One hundred patients (89%) were women. Participants’ mean age at initiation of onabotulinumtoxin A treatment was 43 years. The population’s mean duration of chronic migraine was 29 months. Eighty-three patients (74.1%) had medication overuse, and 96 (85.7%) responded to onabotulinumtoxin A.

Cluster A traits in the population included paranoid (prevalence, 10.7%), schizoid (38.4%), and schizotypal (7.1%). Cluster B traits included histrionic (50%), antisocial (1.8%), narcissistic (9.8%), emotional instability subtype impulsive (27.7%), and emotional instability subtype limit (EISL, 24.1%). Cluster C traits were anxious (58.9%) anancastic (i.e., obsessive-compulsive, 54.5%), and dependent (32.1%).

The investigators found no differences in demographics between responders and nonresponders. In a univariate analysis, dependent traits (e.g., passivity and emotional overdependence on others) and EISL traits (e.g., impulsivity and disturbed self-image) were significantly more common among nonresponders. In a multivariate analysis, dependent traits remained significantly associated with nonresponse to onabotulinumtoxin A.

Medication overuse was a potential confounder in the study, according to Dr. Gonzalez-Martinez and colleagues. One of the study’s limitations was its absence of a healthy control group. Another was the fact that the psychometrics of the Salamanca screening test have not been published in a peer-reviewed journal and may need further examination.

Dependent personality “may also be part of the proposed chronic pain sufferer personality,” wrote the investigators. “Early detection of personality traits could improve management and outcome of chronic migraine patients. Additionally, the possibility to predict the effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxin A therapy may reduce costs and latency time of effect in patients with improbable effectiveness.”

The study had no outside funding, and the authors reported no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Gonzalez-Martinez A et al. Headache. 2020;60(1):153-61.

Among patients with chronic migraine, dependent personality trait is associated with failure to respond to onabotulinumtoxin A, according to research published in the January issue of Headache. The research may be the first to show that personality traits predict response to onabotulinumtoxin A in this population.

“These findings point out that conducting an evaluation of personality traits in patients with chronic migraine might be helpful in the prediction of the course and election of the treatment, as well as identifying patients who might benefit from a multidisciplinary approach,” wrote Alicia Gonzalez-Martinez, MD, of the Hospital Universitario de La Princesa and Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de La Princesa in Madrid and colleagues. “Categorical questionnaires such as the Salamanca screening test seem to be useful for this purpose.”
 

Researchers used ICD-10 personality criteria

Personality patterns in patients with migraine and other primary headaches have been the subject of decades of research. Munoz et al. found that certain personality traits are associated with migraine and chronic migraine, and this association may influence clinical management and treatment. The effect of personality traits on response to treatment, however, had not been studied previously.

Dr. Gonzalez-Martinez and colleagues hypothesized that cluster C traits (e.g., obsessive-compulsive, dependent, and anxious), as defined by ICD-10, are associated with nonresponse to onabotulinumtoxin A. To test this hypothesis, they conducted a case-control observational study in a cohort of patients with chronic migraine. Eligible patients presented to one of two headache units of a tertiary hospital between January and May 2018. The investigators obtained a complete headache history and demographic information from each patient. Patients had at least two treatment cycles of onabotulinumtoxin A. Dr. Gonzalez-Martinez and colleagues defined treatment response as a reduction in the number of monthly migraine days of at least 50% after at least two treatment cycles.

The investigators assessed participants’ personality traits by administering the Salamanca test, a brief categorical inventory that examines 11 personality traits using 22 questions. Patients completed the test at the beginning of the study period and before they were classified as responders or nonresponders.
 

Medication overuse was a potential confounder

The study population included 112 patients with chronic migraine. One hundred patients (89%) were women. Participants’ mean age at initiation of onabotulinumtoxin A treatment was 43 years. The population’s mean duration of chronic migraine was 29 months. Eighty-three patients (74.1%) had medication overuse, and 96 (85.7%) responded to onabotulinumtoxin A.

Cluster A traits in the population included paranoid (prevalence, 10.7%), schizoid (38.4%), and schizotypal (7.1%). Cluster B traits included histrionic (50%), antisocial (1.8%), narcissistic (9.8%), emotional instability subtype impulsive (27.7%), and emotional instability subtype limit (EISL, 24.1%). Cluster C traits were anxious (58.9%) anancastic (i.e., obsessive-compulsive, 54.5%), and dependent (32.1%).

The investigators found no differences in demographics between responders and nonresponders. In a univariate analysis, dependent traits (e.g., passivity and emotional overdependence on others) and EISL traits (e.g., impulsivity and disturbed self-image) were significantly more common among nonresponders. In a multivariate analysis, dependent traits remained significantly associated with nonresponse to onabotulinumtoxin A.

Medication overuse was a potential confounder in the study, according to Dr. Gonzalez-Martinez and colleagues. One of the study’s limitations was its absence of a healthy control group. Another was the fact that the psychometrics of the Salamanca screening test have not been published in a peer-reviewed journal and may need further examination.

Dependent personality “may also be part of the proposed chronic pain sufferer personality,” wrote the investigators. “Early detection of personality traits could improve management and outcome of chronic migraine patients. Additionally, the possibility to predict the effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxin A therapy may reduce costs and latency time of effect in patients with improbable effectiveness.”

The study had no outside funding, and the authors reported no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Gonzalez-Martinez A et al. Headache. 2020;60(1):153-61.

Among patients with chronic migraine, dependent personality trait is associated with failure to respond to onabotulinumtoxin A, according to research published in the January issue of Headache. The research may be the first to show that personality traits predict response to onabotulinumtoxin A in this population.

“These findings point out that conducting an evaluation of personality traits in patients with chronic migraine might be helpful in the prediction of the course and election of the treatment, as well as identifying patients who might benefit from a multidisciplinary approach,” wrote Alicia Gonzalez-Martinez, MD, of the Hospital Universitario de La Princesa and Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de La Princesa in Madrid and colleagues. “Categorical questionnaires such as the Salamanca screening test seem to be useful for this purpose.”
 

Researchers used ICD-10 personality criteria

Personality patterns in patients with migraine and other primary headaches have been the subject of decades of research. Munoz et al. found that certain personality traits are associated with migraine and chronic migraine, and this association may influence clinical management and treatment. The effect of personality traits on response to treatment, however, had not been studied previously.

Dr. Gonzalez-Martinez and colleagues hypothesized that cluster C traits (e.g., obsessive-compulsive, dependent, and anxious), as defined by ICD-10, are associated with nonresponse to onabotulinumtoxin A. To test this hypothesis, they conducted a case-control observational study in a cohort of patients with chronic migraine. Eligible patients presented to one of two headache units of a tertiary hospital between January and May 2018. The investigators obtained a complete headache history and demographic information from each patient. Patients had at least two treatment cycles of onabotulinumtoxin A. Dr. Gonzalez-Martinez and colleagues defined treatment response as a reduction in the number of monthly migraine days of at least 50% after at least two treatment cycles.

The investigators assessed participants’ personality traits by administering the Salamanca test, a brief categorical inventory that examines 11 personality traits using 22 questions. Patients completed the test at the beginning of the study period and before they were classified as responders or nonresponders.
 

Medication overuse was a potential confounder

The study population included 112 patients with chronic migraine. One hundred patients (89%) were women. Participants’ mean age at initiation of onabotulinumtoxin A treatment was 43 years. The population’s mean duration of chronic migraine was 29 months. Eighty-three patients (74.1%) had medication overuse, and 96 (85.7%) responded to onabotulinumtoxin A.

Cluster A traits in the population included paranoid (prevalence, 10.7%), schizoid (38.4%), and schizotypal (7.1%). Cluster B traits included histrionic (50%), antisocial (1.8%), narcissistic (9.8%), emotional instability subtype impulsive (27.7%), and emotional instability subtype limit (EISL, 24.1%). Cluster C traits were anxious (58.9%) anancastic (i.e., obsessive-compulsive, 54.5%), and dependent (32.1%).

The investigators found no differences in demographics between responders and nonresponders. In a univariate analysis, dependent traits (e.g., passivity and emotional overdependence on others) and EISL traits (e.g., impulsivity and disturbed self-image) were significantly more common among nonresponders. In a multivariate analysis, dependent traits remained significantly associated with nonresponse to onabotulinumtoxin A.

Medication overuse was a potential confounder in the study, according to Dr. Gonzalez-Martinez and colleagues. One of the study’s limitations was its absence of a healthy control group. Another was the fact that the psychometrics of the Salamanca screening test have not been published in a peer-reviewed journal and may need further examination.

Dependent personality “may also be part of the proposed chronic pain sufferer personality,” wrote the investigators. “Early detection of personality traits could improve management and outcome of chronic migraine patients. Additionally, the possibility to predict the effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxin A therapy may reduce costs and latency time of effect in patients with improbable effectiveness.”

The study had no outside funding, and the authors reported no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Gonzalez-Martinez A et al. Headache. 2020;60(1):153-61.

Trends in opioid prescribing and use from 2010 to 2016 offer some encouragement, but opioid-attributable deaths continued to increase over that period, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Prescribing rates dropped during that period, as did daily opioid dosage rates and the percentage of patients with high daily opioid dosages, Gail K. Strickler, PhD, of the Institute for Behavioral Health at Brandeis University in Waltham, Mass., and associates wrote in MMWR Surveillance Summaries.

Their analysis involved 11 of the 12 states (Washington was unable to provide data for the analysis) participating in the CDC’s Prescription Behavior Surveillance System, which uses data from the states’ prescription drug monitoring programs. The 11 states represented about 38% of the U.S. population in 2016.

The opioid prescribing rate fell in 10 of those 11 states, with declines varying from 3.4% in Idaho to 33.0% in Ohio. Prescribing went up in Texas by 11.3%, but the state only had data available for 2015 and 2016. Three other states – Delaware, Florida, and Idaho – were limited to data from 2012 to 2016, the investigators noted.

As for the other measures, all states showed declines for the mean daily opioid dosage. Texas had the smallest drop at 2.9% and Florida saw the largest, at 27.4%. All states also had reductions in the percentage of patients with high daily opioid dosage, with decreases varying from 5.7% in Idaho to 43.9% in Louisiana, Dr. Strickler and associates reported. A high daily dosage was defined as at least 90 morphine milligram equivalents for all class II-V opioid drugs.

“Despite these favorable trends ... opioid overdose deaths attributable to the most commonly prescribed opioids, the natural and semisynthetics (e.g., morphine and oxycodone), increased during 2010-2016,” they said.

It is possible that a change in mortality is lagging “behind changes in prescribing behaviors” or that “the trend in deaths related to these types of opioids has been driven by factors other than prescription opioid misuse rates, such as increasing mortality from heroin, which is frequently classified as morphine or found concomitantly with morphine postmortem, and a spike in deaths involving illicitly manufactured fentanyl combined with heroin and prescribed opioids since 2013,” the investigators suggested.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Strickler GK et al. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2020 Jan 31;69(1):1-14.

Trends in opioid prescribing and use from 2010 to 2016 offer some encouragement, but opioid-attributable deaths continued to increase over that period, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Prescribing rates dropped during that period, as did daily opioid dosage rates and the percentage of patients with high daily opioid dosages, Gail K. Strickler, PhD, of the Institute for Behavioral Health at Brandeis University in Waltham, Mass., and associates wrote in MMWR Surveillance Summaries.

Their analysis involved 11 of the 12 states (Washington was unable to provide data for the analysis) participating in the CDC’s Prescription Behavior Surveillance System, which uses data from the states’ prescription drug monitoring programs. The 11 states represented about 38% of the U.S. population in 2016.

The opioid prescribing rate fell in 10 of those 11 states, with declines varying from 3.4% in Idaho to 33.0% in Ohio. Prescribing went up in Texas by 11.3%, but the state only had data available for 2015 and 2016. Three other states – Delaware, Florida, and Idaho – were limited to data from 2012 to 2016, the investigators noted.

As for the other measures, all states showed declines for the mean daily opioid dosage. Texas had the smallest drop at 2.9% and Florida saw the largest, at 27.4%. All states also had reductions in the percentage of patients with high daily opioid dosage, with decreases varying from 5.7% in Idaho to 43.9% in Louisiana, Dr. Strickler and associates reported. A high daily dosage was defined as at least 90 morphine milligram equivalents for all class II-V opioid drugs.

“Despite these favorable trends ... opioid overdose deaths attributable to the most commonly prescribed opioids, the natural and semisynthetics (e.g., morphine and oxycodone), increased during 2010-2016,” they said.

It is possible that a change in mortality is lagging “behind changes in prescribing behaviors” or that “the trend in deaths related to these types of opioids has been driven by factors other than prescription opioid misuse rates, such as increasing mortality from heroin, which is frequently classified as morphine or found concomitantly with morphine postmortem, and a spike in deaths involving illicitly manufactured fentanyl combined with heroin and prescribed opioids since 2013,” the investigators suggested.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Strickler GK et al. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2020 Jan 31;69(1):1-14.

Trends in opioid prescribing and use from 2010 to 2016 offer some encouragement, but opioid-attributable deaths continued to increase over that period, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Prescribing rates dropped during that period, as did daily opioid dosage rates and the percentage of patients with high daily opioid dosages, Gail K. Strickler, PhD, of the Institute for Behavioral Health at Brandeis University in Waltham, Mass., and associates wrote in MMWR Surveillance Summaries.

Their analysis involved 11 of the 12 states (Washington was unable to provide data for the analysis) participating in the CDC’s Prescription Behavior Surveillance System, which uses data from the states’ prescription drug monitoring programs. The 11 states represented about 38% of the U.S. population in 2016.

The opioid prescribing rate fell in 10 of those 11 states, with declines varying from 3.4% in Idaho to 33.0% in Ohio. Prescribing went up in Texas by 11.3%, but the state only had data available for 2015 and 2016. Three other states – Delaware, Florida, and Idaho – were limited to data from 2012 to 2016, the investigators noted.

As for the other measures, all states showed declines for the mean daily opioid dosage. Texas had the smallest drop at 2.9% and Florida saw the largest, at 27.4%. All states also had reductions in the percentage of patients with high daily opioid dosage, with decreases varying from 5.7% in Idaho to 43.9% in Louisiana, Dr. Strickler and associates reported. A high daily dosage was defined as at least 90 morphine milligram equivalents for all class II-V opioid drugs.

“Despite these favorable trends ... opioid overdose deaths attributable to the most commonly prescribed opioids, the natural and semisynthetics (e.g., morphine and oxycodone), increased during 2010-2016,” they said.

It is possible that a change in mortality is lagging “behind changes in prescribing behaviors” or that “the trend in deaths related to these types of opioids has been driven by factors other than prescription opioid misuse rates, such as increasing mortality from heroin, which is frequently classified as morphine or found concomitantly with morphine postmortem, and a spike in deaths involving illicitly manufactured fentanyl combined with heroin and prescribed opioids since 2013,” the investigators suggested.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Strickler GK et al. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2020 Jan 31;69(1):1-14.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

A 2015 meta-analysis of 35 studies (7 RCTs, 6 cohort studies, 22 case series) of 2239 wrist ganglion cysts examined the recurrence rate of cysts after common treatments.¹ Two RCTs and 4 cohort studies compared open surgical excision with aspiration with or without corticosteroid injection.

The RCTs found significantly lower recurrence rates following open surgical excision compared with aspiration (2 trials; 60 cysts; risk ratio [RR] = 0.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.08-0.71; number needed to treat [NNT] = 3). The cohort studies likewise found markedly less recurrence of cysts after open surgical excision than aspiration (4 studies; 461 cysts; RR = 0.42; 95% CI, 0.21-0.85; NNT = 4). Recurrence rates didn’t ­differ between aspiration and observation (2 cohort studies; 209 cysts; RR = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.77-1.28).

Overall, the RCT evidence was of moderate quality because of a lack of significant heterogeneity, and the cohort evidence was graded as very low quality because of heterogeneity.

More evidence of lower recurrence with surgical excision

A 2014 prospective RCT, not included in the foregoing meta-analysis because it was published after the search date, compared ganglion cyst recurrence at 6 months for 2 groups: one group received aspiration accompanied by corticosteroid injection and the other had surgical treatment.² The trial included 173 patients ages 16 to 47 years with 187 ganglia of the wrist, ankle, or knee (143 wrist ganglia). Patients were excluded if they had a history of recurrent ganglia, prior treatment of ganglia, nearby joint injury, bleeding disorders, pregnancy, compound palmar ganglion, ganglion near arteries, infected ganglion, ganglion associated with arthritic disease, or ganglion measuring < 5 mm in size.

Patients were allowed to choose aspiration with corticosteroid injection or surgical excision. The aspiration group (143 ganglia: 106 wrist, 21 ankle, 16 knee) underwent aspiration using a 19-gauge needle and 10-mL syringe followed by injection of 0.25 to 1.0 mL of triamcinolone acetonide. Aspiration and injection were repeated if indicated at either 6 weeks or 3 months. The surgical excision group comprised 44 ganglia: 37 wrist and 7 ankle.

The success rate at 6 months following aspiration with corticosteroid injection was 81% compared with 93% after surgical excision (NNT = 8). Surgical treatment was associated with significantly less recurrence than aspiration and injection (7% vs 19%; P < .028).

Patients report symptomatic improvement after aspiration

A 2015 retrospective case series assessed the long-term outcomes of 21 patients following aspiration of wrist ganglia.³ The patients, who were 41 to 49 years of age, each had a single wrist ganglion that was treated with aspiration between 2001 and 2011 by a single surgeon. Mean time to follow-up was 6.3 years. Outcomes reviewed included recurrence, satisfaction, and improvement in symptoms—pain, function, range of motion, and appearance—using a 1 to 5 Likert scale (1 = significantly worse; 5 = significantly improved).

Continue to: Overall, 52.4% of patients...

Overall, 52.4% of patients experienced recurrence of their ganglia. However, 95% expressed satisfaction with treatment independent of recurrence. Mean symptom scores improved from baseline for pain (4.1 points), function (3.9 points), range of motion (3.8 points), and appearance (4.1 points). Improvements in all symptoms were independent of recurrence.

Aspiration plus steroids results in 43% recurrence rate

A 2015 prospective study examined the recurrence rate at 1 year after therapy in 30 patients, ages 15 to 55 years, with a wrist ganglion treated by aspiration and steroid injection.⁴ Patients chose aspiration and steroid injection with 40 mg/mL methyl-­prednisolone acetate over reassurance or surgical intervention. The recurrence rate at 1-year follow-up was 43.3% (13 patients).

Editor’s takeaway

Surgical excision of ganglion cysts results in fewer recurrences than aspiration. However, moderately high-quality evidence shows that both methods help most patients.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

A 2015 meta-analysis of 35 studies (7 RCTs, 6 cohort studies, 22 case series) of 2239 wrist ganglion cysts examined the recurrence rate of cysts after common treatments.¹ Two RCTs and 4 cohort studies compared open surgical excision with aspiration with or without corticosteroid injection.

The RCTs found significantly lower recurrence rates following open surgical excision compared with aspiration (2 trials; 60 cysts; risk ratio [RR] = 0.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.08-0.71; number needed to treat [NNT] = 3). The cohort studies likewise found markedly less recurrence of cysts after open surgical excision than aspiration (4 studies; 461 cysts; RR = 0.42; 95% CI, 0.21-0.85; NNT = 4). Recurrence rates didn’t ­differ between aspiration and observation (2 cohort studies; 209 cysts; RR = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.77-1.28).

Overall, the RCT evidence was of moderate quality because of a lack of significant heterogeneity, and the cohort evidence was graded as very low quality because of heterogeneity.

More evidence of lower recurrence with surgical excision

A 2014 prospective RCT, not included in the foregoing meta-analysis because it was published after the search date, compared ganglion cyst recurrence at 6 months for 2 groups: one group received aspiration accompanied by corticosteroid injection and the other had surgical treatment.² The trial included 173 patients ages 16 to 47 years with 187 ganglia of the wrist, ankle, or knee (143 wrist ganglia). Patients were excluded if they had a history of recurrent ganglia, prior treatment of ganglia, nearby joint injury, bleeding disorders, pregnancy, compound palmar ganglion, ganglion near arteries, infected ganglion, ganglion associated with arthritic disease, or ganglion measuring < 5 mm in size.

Patients were allowed to choose aspiration with corticosteroid injection or surgical excision. The aspiration group (143 ganglia: 106 wrist, 21 ankle, 16 knee) underwent aspiration using a 19-gauge needle and 10-mL syringe followed by injection of 0.25 to 1.0 mL of triamcinolone acetonide. Aspiration and injection were repeated if indicated at either 6 weeks or 3 months. The surgical excision group comprised 44 ganglia: 37 wrist and 7 ankle.

The success rate at 6 months following aspiration with corticosteroid injection was 81% compared with 93% after surgical excision (NNT = 8). Surgical treatment was associated with significantly less recurrence than aspiration and injection (7% vs 19%; P < .028).

Patients report symptomatic improvement after aspiration

A 2015 retrospective case series assessed the long-term outcomes of 21 patients following aspiration of wrist ganglia.³ The patients, who were 41 to 49 years of age, each had a single wrist ganglion that was treated with aspiration between 2001 and 2011 by a single surgeon. Mean time to follow-up was 6.3 years. Outcomes reviewed included recurrence, satisfaction, and improvement in symptoms—pain, function, range of motion, and appearance—using a 1 to 5 Likert scale (1 = significantly worse; 5 = significantly improved).

Continue to: Overall, 52.4% of patients...

Overall, 52.4% of patients experienced recurrence of their ganglia. However, 95% expressed satisfaction with treatment independent of recurrence. Mean symptom scores improved from baseline for pain (4.1 points), function (3.9 points), range of motion (3.8 points), and appearance (4.1 points). Improvements in all symptoms were independent of recurrence.

Aspiration plus steroids results in 43% recurrence rate

A 2015 prospective study examined the recurrence rate at 1 year after therapy in 30 patients, ages 15 to 55 years, with a wrist ganglion treated by aspiration and steroid injection.⁴ Patients chose aspiration and steroid injection with 40 mg/mL methyl-­prednisolone acetate over reassurance or surgical intervention. The recurrence rate at 1-year follow-up was 43.3% (13 patients).

Editor’s takeaway

Surgical excision of ganglion cysts results in fewer recurrences than aspiration. However, moderately high-quality evidence shows that both methods help most patients.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

A 2015 meta-analysis of 35 studies (7 RCTs, 6 cohort studies, 22 case series) of 2239 wrist ganglion cysts examined the recurrence rate of cysts after common treatments.¹ Two RCTs and 4 cohort studies compared open surgical excision with aspiration with or without corticosteroid injection.

The RCTs found significantly lower recurrence rates following open surgical excision compared with aspiration (2 trials; 60 cysts; risk ratio [RR] = 0.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.08-0.71; number needed to treat [NNT] = 3). The cohort studies likewise found markedly less recurrence of cysts after open surgical excision than aspiration (4 studies; 461 cysts; RR = 0.42; 95% CI, 0.21-0.85; NNT = 4). Recurrence rates didn’t ­differ between aspiration and observation (2 cohort studies; 209 cysts; RR = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.77-1.28).

Overall, the RCT evidence was of moderate quality because of a lack of significant heterogeneity, and the cohort evidence was graded as very low quality because of heterogeneity.

More evidence of lower recurrence with surgical excision

A 2014 prospective RCT, not included in the foregoing meta-analysis because it was published after the search date, compared ganglion cyst recurrence at 6 months for 2 groups: one group received aspiration accompanied by corticosteroid injection and the other had surgical treatment.² The trial included 173 patients ages 16 to 47 years with 187 ganglia of the wrist, ankle, or knee (143 wrist ganglia). Patients were excluded if they had a history of recurrent ganglia, prior treatment of ganglia, nearby joint injury, bleeding disorders, pregnancy, compound palmar ganglion, ganglion near arteries, infected ganglion, ganglion associated with arthritic disease, or ganglion measuring < 5 mm in size.

Patients were allowed to choose aspiration with corticosteroid injection or surgical excision. The aspiration group (143 ganglia: 106 wrist, 21 ankle, 16 knee) underwent aspiration using a 19-gauge needle and 10-mL syringe followed by injection of 0.25 to 1.0 mL of triamcinolone acetonide. Aspiration and injection were repeated if indicated at either 6 weeks or 3 months. The surgical excision group comprised 44 ganglia: 37 wrist and 7 ankle.

The success rate at 6 months following aspiration with corticosteroid injection was 81% compared with 93% after surgical excision (NNT = 8). Surgical treatment was associated with significantly less recurrence than aspiration and injection (7% vs 19%; P < .028).

Patients report symptomatic improvement after aspiration

A 2015 retrospective case series assessed the long-term outcomes of 21 patients following aspiration of wrist ganglia.³ The patients, who were 41 to 49 years of age, each had a single wrist ganglion that was treated with aspiration between 2001 and 2011 by a single surgeon. Mean time to follow-up was 6.3 years. Outcomes reviewed included recurrence, satisfaction, and improvement in symptoms—pain, function, range of motion, and appearance—using a 1 to 5 Likert scale (1 = significantly worse; 5 = significantly improved).

Continue to: Overall, 52.4% of patients...

Overall, 52.4% of patients experienced recurrence of their ganglia. However, 95% expressed satisfaction with treatment independent of recurrence. Mean symptom scores improved from baseline for pain (4.1 points), function (3.9 points), range of motion (3.8 points), and appearance (4.1 points). Improvements in all symptoms were independent of recurrence.

Aspiration plus steroids results in 43% recurrence rate

A 2015 prospective study examined the recurrence rate at 1 year after therapy in 30 patients, ages 15 to 55 years, with a wrist ganglion treated by aspiration and steroid injection.⁴ Patients chose aspiration and steroid injection with 40 mg/mL methyl-­prednisolone acetate over reassurance or surgical intervention. The recurrence rate at 1-year follow-up was 43.3% (13 patients).

Editor’s takeaway

Surgical excision of ganglion cysts results in fewer recurrences than aspiration. However, moderately high-quality evidence shows that both methods help most patients.

THE CASE

A 56-year-old woman presented with a 3-day complaint of worsening left upper arm pain. She denied having any specific initiating factors but reported receiving an influenza vaccination in the arm a few days prior to the onset of pain. The patient did not have any associated numbness or tingling in the arm. She reported that the pain was worse with movement—especially abduction. The patient reported taking an over-the-counter nonsteroidal anti-­inflammatory drug (NSAID) without much relief.

On physical examination, the patient had difficulty with active range of motion and had erythema, swelling, and tenderness to palpation along the subacromial space and the proximal deltoid. Further examination of the shoulder revealed a positive Neer Impingement Test and a positive Hawkins–Kennedy Test. (For more on these tests, visit “MSK Clinic: Evaluating shoulder pain using IPASS.”). The patient demonstrated full passive range of motion, but her pain was exacerbated with abduction.

THE DIAGNOSIS

In light of the soft-tissue findings and the absence of trauma, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), rather than an ­x-ray, of the upper extremity was ordered. ­Imaging revealed subacromial subdeltoid bursal inflammation (FIGURE).

DISCUSSION

Shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) is the result of accidental injection of a vaccine into the tissue lying underneath the deltoid muscle or joint space, leading to a suspected immune-mediated inflammatory reaction.

A report from the National Vaccine Advisory Committee of the US ­Department of Health & Human Services showed an increase in the number of reported cases of SIRVA (59 reported cases in 2011-2014 and 202 cases reported in 2016).¹ Additionally, in 2016 more than $29 million was awarded in compensation to patients with SIRVA.^1,2 In a 2011 report, an Institute of Medicine committee found convincing evidence of a causal relationship between injection of vaccine, independent of the antigen involved, and deltoid bursitis, or frozen shoulder, characterized by shoulder pain and loss of motion.³

A review of 13 cases revealed that 50% of the patients reported pain immediately after the injection and 90% had developed pain within 24 hours.² On physical exam, a limited range of motion and pain were the most common findings, while weakness and sensory changes were uncommon. In some cases, the pain lasted several years and 30% of the patients required surgery. Forty-six percent of the patients reported apprehension concerning the administration of the vaccine, specifically that the injection was administered “too high” into the deltoid.²

In the review of cases, routine x-rays of the shoulder did not provide beneficial diagnostic information; however, when an MRI was performed, it revealed fluid collections in the deep deltoid or overlying the rotator cuff tendons; bursitis; tendonitis; and rotator cuff tears.²

Continue to: Management of SIRVA

Management of SIRVA is similar to that of other shoulder injuries. Treatment may include icing the shoulder, NSAIDs, intra­-articular steroid injections, and physical therapy. If conservative management does not resolve the patient’s pain and improve function, then a consult with an orthopedic surgeon is recommended to determine if surgical intervention is required.

Vaccines should be injected at a 90° angle into the central and thickest portion of the deltoid muscle approximately 2” below the acromion process.

Another case report from Japan reported that a 45-year-old woman developed acute pain following a third injection of ­Cervarix, the prophylactic human papillomavirus-16/18 vaccine. An x-ray was ordered and was normal, but an MRI revealed acute subacromial bursitis. In an attempt to relieve the pain and improve her mobility, multiple cortisone injections were administered and physical therapy was performed. Despite the conservative treatment efforts, she continued to have pain and limited mobility in the shoulder 6 months following the onset of symptoms. As a result, the patient underwent arthroscopic synovectomy and subacromial decompression. One week following the surgery, the patient’s pain improved and at 1 year she had no pain and full range of motion.⁴

Prevention of SIRVA

By using appropriate techniques when administering intramuscular vaccinations, SIRVA can be prevented. The manufacturer recommended route of administration is based on studies showing maximum safety and immunogenicity, and should therefore be followed by the individual administering the vaccine.⁵ The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends using a 22- to 25-gauge needle that is long enough to reach into the muscle and may range from ⅝" to 1½" depending on the patient’s weight.⁶ The vaccine should be injected at a 90° angle into the central and thickest portion of the deltoid muscle, about 2" below the acromion process and above the level of the axilla.⁵

Our patient’s outcome. The patient’s symptoms resolved within 10 days of receiving a steroid injection into the subacromial space. Although this case was the result of the influenza vaccine, any intramuscularly injected vaccine could lead to SIRVA.

THE TAKEAWAY

Inappropriate administration of routine intramuscularly injected vaccinations can lead to significant patient harm, including pain and disability. It is important for physicians to be aware of SIRVA and to be able to identify the signs and symptoms. Although an MRI of the shoulder is helpful in confirming the diagnosis, it is not necessary if the physician takes a thorough history and performs a comprehensive shoulder exam. Routine x-rays do not provide any beneficial clinical information.

CORRESPONDENCE
Bryan Farford, DO, Department of Family Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Davis Building, 4500 San Pablo Road South #358, Jacksonville, FL 32224; [email protected]

THE CASE

A 56-year-old woman presented with a 3-day complaint of worsening left upper arm pain. She denied having any specific initiating factors but reported receiving an influenza vaccination in the arm a few days prior to the onset of pain. The patient did not have any associated numbness or tingling in the arm. She reported that the pain was worse with movement—especially abduction. The patient reported taking an over-the-counter nonsteroidal anti-­inflammatory drug (NSAID) without much relief.

On physical examination, the patient had difficulty with active range of motion and had erythema, swelling, and tenderness to palpation along the subacromial space and the proximal deltoid. Further examination of the shoulder revealed a positive Neer Impingement Test and a positive Hawkins–Kennedy Test. (For more on these tests, visit “MSK Clinic: Evaluating shoulder pain using IPASS.”). The patient demonstrated full passive range of motion, but her pain was exacerbated with abduction.

THE DIAGNOSIS

In light of the soft-tissue findings and the absence of trauma, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), rather than an ­x-ray, of the upper extremity was ordered. ­Imaging revealed subacromial subdeltoid bursal inflammation (FIGURE).

DISCUSSION

Shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) is the result of accidental injection of a vaccine into the tissue lying underneath the deltoid muscle or joint space, leading to a suspected immune-mediated inflammatory reaction.

A report from the National Vaccine Advisory Committee of the US ­Department of Health & Human Services showed an increase in the number of reported cases of SIRVA (59 reported cases in 2011-2014 and 202 cases reported in 2016).¹ Additionally, in 2016 more than $29 million was awarded in compensation to patients with SIRVA.^1,2 In a 2011 report, an Institute of Medicine committee found convincing evidence of a causal relationship between injection of vaccine, independent of the antigen involved, and deltoid bursitis, or frozen shoulder, characterized by shoulder pain and loss of motion.³

A review of 13 cases revealed that 50% of the patients reported pain immediately after the injection and 90% had developed pain within 24 hours.² On physical exam, a limited range of motion and pain were the most common findings, while weakness and sensory changes were uncommon. In some cases, the pain lasted several years and 30% of the patients required surgery. Forty-six percent of the patients reported apprehension concerning the administration of the vaccine, specifically that the injection was administered “too high” into the deltoid.²

In the review of cases, routine x-rays of the shoulder did not provide beneficial diagnostic information; however, when an MRI was performed, it revealed fluid collections in the deep deltoid or overlying the rotator cuff tendons; bursitis; tendonitis; and rotator cuff tears.²

Continue to: Management of SIRVA

Management of SIRVA is similar to that of other shoulder injuries. Treatment may include icing the shoulder, NSAIDs, intra­-articular steroid injections, and physical therapy. If conservative management does not resolve the patient’s pain and improve function, then a consult with an orthopedic surgeon is recommended to determine if surgical intervention is required.

Vaccines should be injected at a 90° angle into the central and thickest portion of the deltoid muscle approximately 2” below the acromion process.

Another case report from Japan reported that a 45-year-old woman developed acute pain following a third injection of ­Cervarix, the prophylactic human papillomavirus-16/18 vaccine. An x-ray was ordered and was normal, but an MRI revealed acute subacromial bursitis. In an attempt to relieve the pain and improve her mobility, multiple cortisone injections were administered and physical therapy was performed. Despite the conservative treatment efforts, she continued to have pain and limited mobility in the shoulder 6 months following the onset of symptoms. As a result, the patient underwent arthroscopic synovectomy and subacromial decompression. One week following the surgery, the patient’s pain improved and at 1 year she had no pain and full range of motion.⁴

Prevention of SIRVA

By using appropriate techniques when administering intramuscular vaccinations, SIRVA can be prevented. The manufacturer recommended route of administration is based on studies showing maximum safety and immunogenicity, and should therefore be followed by the individual administering the vaccine.⁵ The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends using a 22- to 25-gauge needle that is long enough to reach into the muscle and may range from ⅝" to 1½" depending on the patient’s weight.⁶ The vaccine should be injected at a 90° angle into the central and thickest portion of the deltoid muscle, about 2" below the acromion process and above the level of the axilla.⁵

Our patient’s outcome. The patient’s symptoms resolved within 10 days of receiving a steroid injection into the subacromial space. Although this case was the result of the influenza vaccine, any intramuscularly injected vaccine could lead to SIRVA.

THE TAKEAWAY

Inappropriate administration of routine intramuscularly injected vaccinations can lead to significant patient harm, including pain and disability. It is important for physicians to be aware of SIRVA and to be able to identify the signs and symptoms. Although an MRI of the shoulder is helpful in confirming the diagnosis, it is not necessary if the physician takes a thorough history and performs a comprehensive shoulder exam. Routine x-rays do not provide any beneficial clinical information.

CORRESPONDENCE
Bryan Farford, DO, Department of Family Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Davis Building, 4500 San Pablo Road South #358, Jacksonville, FL 32224; [email protected]

THE CASE

A 56-year-old woman presented with a 3-day complaint of worsening left upper arm pain. She denied having any specific initiating factors but reported receiving an influenza vaccination in the arm a few days prior to the onset of pain. The patient did not have any associated numbness or tingling in the arm. She reported that the pain was worse with movement—especially abduction. The patient reported taking an over-the-counter nonsteroidal anti-­inflammatory drug (NSAID) without much relief.

On physical examination, the patient had difficulty with active range of motion and had erythema, swelling, and tenderness to palpation along the subacromial space and the proximal deltoid. Further examination of the shoulder revealed a positive Neer Impingement Test and a positive Hawkins–Kennedy Test. (For more on these tests, visit “MSK Clinic: Evaluating shoulder pain using IPASS.”). The patient demonstrated full passive range of motion, but her pain was exacerbated with abduction.

THE DIAGNOSIS

In light of the soft-tissue findings and the absence of trauma, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), rather than an ­x-ray, of the upper extremity was ordered. ­Imaging revealed subacromial subdeltoid bursal inflammation (FIGURE).

DISCUSSION

Shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) is the result of accidental injection of a vaccine into the tissue lying underneath the deltoid muscle or joint space, leading to a suspected immune-mediated inflammatory reaction.

A report from the National Vaccine Advisory Committee of the US ­Department of Health & Human Services showed an increase in the number of reported cases of SIRVA (59 reported cases in 2011-2014 and 202 cases reported in 2016).¹ Additionally, in 2016 more than $29 million was awarded in compensation to patients with SIRVA.^1,2 In a 2011 report, an Institute of Medicine committee found convincing evidence of a causal relationship between injection of vaccine, independent of the antigen involved, and deltoid bursitis, or frozen shoulder, characterized by shoulder pain and loss of motion.³

A review of 13 cases revealed that 50% of the patients reported pain immediately after the injection and 90% had developed pain within 24 hours.² On physical exam, a limited range of motion and pain were the most common findings, while weakness and sensory changes were uncommon. In some cases, the pain lasted several years and 30% of the patients required surgery. Forty-six percent of the patients reported apprehension concerning the administration of the vaccine, specifically that the injection was administered “too high” into the deltoid.²

In the review of cases, routine x-rays of the shoulder did not provide beneficial diagnostic information; however, when an MRI was performed, it revealed fluid collections in the deep deltoid or overlying the rotator cuff tendons; bursitis; tendonitis; and rotator cuff tears.²

Continue to: Management of SIRVA

Management of SIRVA is similar to that of other shoulder injuries. Treatment may include icing the shoulder, NSAIDs, intra­-articular steroid injections, and physical therapy. If conservative management does not resolve the patient’s pain and improve function, then a consult with an orthopedic surgeon is recommended to determine if surgical intervention is required.

Vaccines should be injected at a 90° angle into the central and thickest portion of the deltoid muscle approximately 2” below the acromion process.

Another case report from Japan reported that a 45-year-old woman developed acute pain following a third injection of ­Cervarix, the prophylactic human papillomavirus-16/18 vaccine. An x-ray was ordered and was normal, but an MRI revealed acute subacromial bursitis. In an attempt to relieve the pain and improve her mobility, multiple cortisone injections were administered and physical therapy was performed. Despite the conservative treatment efforts, she continued to have pain and limited mobility in the shoulder 6 months following the onset of symptoms. As a result, the patient underwent arthroscopic synovectomy and subacromial decompression. One week following the surgery, the patient’s pain improved and at 1 year she had no pain and full range of motion.⁴

Prevention of SIRVA

By using appropriate techniques when administering intramuscular vaccinations, SIRVA can be prevented. The manufacturer recommended route of administration is based on studies showing maximum safety and immunogenicity, and should therefore be followed by the individual administering the vaccine.⁵ The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends using a 22- to 25-gauge needle that is long enough to reach into the muscle and may range from ⅝" to 1½" depending on the patient’s weight.⁶ The vaccine should be injected at a 90° angle into the central and thickest portion of the deltoid muscle, about 2" below the acromion process and above the level of the axilla.⁵

Our patient’s outcome. The patient’s symptoms resolved within 10 days of receiving a steroid injection into the subacromial space. Although this case was the result of the influenza vaccine, any intramuscularly injected vaccine could lead to SIRVA.

THE TAKEAWAY

Inappropriate administration of routine intramuscularly injected vaccinations can lead to significant patient harm, including pain and disability. It is important for physicians to be aware of SIRVA and to be able to identify the signs and symptoms. Although an MRI of the shoulder is helpful in confirming the diagnosis, it is not necessary if the physician takes a thorough history and performs a comprehensive shoulder exam. Routine x-rays do not provide any beneficial clinical information.

CORRESPONDENCE
Bryan Farford, DO, Department of Family Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Davis Building, 4500 San Pablo Road South #358, Jacksonville, FL 32224; [email protected]

Patients suffering from chronic pain who take medicinal cannabis to initiate and maintain sleep appear to experience short-term benefit, but long-term use may ultimately disrupt slumber, new research shows.

Investigators found whole-plant medical cannabis use was associated with fewer problems with respect to waking up at night, but they also found that frequent medical cannabis use was associated with more problems initiating and maintaining sleep.

LPETTET/Getty Images

A common problem

Estimates suggest chronic pain affects up to 37% of adults in the developed world. Individuals who suffer chronic pain often experience comorbid insomnia, which includes difficulty initiating sleep, sleep disruption, and early morning wakening.

For its part, medical cannabis to treat chronic pain symptoms and manage sleep problems has been widely reported as a prime motivation for medical cannabis use. Indeed, previous studies have concluded that the endocannabinoid system plays a role in sleep regulation, including sleep promotion and maintenance.

In recent years, investigators have reported the beneficial effects of medical cannabis for sleep. Nevertheless, some preclinical research has also concluded that chronic administration of tetrahydrocannabinol may result in tolerance to the sleep-enhancing effects of cannabis.

With that in mind, the researchers set out to examine the potential impact of whole-plant medicinal cannabis on sleep problems experienced by middle-aged patients suffering from chronic pain.

“People are self-reporting that they’re using cannabis for sleep and that it helps, but as we know, just because people are reporting that it works doesn’t mean that it will hold up in research,” Dr. Sznitman said.

The study included 128 individuals (mean age, 61±6 years; 51% females) with chronic neuropathic pain: 66 were medical cannabis users and 62 were not.

Three indicators of insomnia were measured using the 7-point Likert scale to assess issues with sleep initiation and maintenance.

In addition, investigators collected sociodemographic information, as well as data on daily consumption of tobacco, frequency of alcohol use, and pain severity. Finally, they collected patient data on the use of sleep-aid medications during the past month as well as tricyclic antidepressant use.
 

Frequent use, more sleep problems?

On average, medical cannabis users were 3 years younger than their nonusing counterparts (mean age, 60±6 vs. 63±6 years, respectively, P = .003) and more likely to be male (58% vs 40%, respectively, P = .038). Otherwise, the two groups were comparable.

Medical cannabis users reported taking the drug for an average of 4 years, at an average quantity of 31 g per month. The primary mode of administration was smoking (68.6%), followed by oil extracts (21.4%) and vaporization (20%).

Results showed that, of the total sample, 24.1% reported always waking up early and not falling back to sleep, 20.2% reported always having difficulty falling asleep, and 27.2% reported always waking up during the night.

After adjusting for patient age, sex, pain level, and use of sleep medications and antidepressants, medical cannabis use was associated with fewer problems with waking up at night, compared with nonmedical cannabis use. No differences were found between groups with respect to problems falling asleep or waking up early without being able to fall back to sleep, Dr. Sznitman and associates reported.

The final analysis of a subsample of patients that only included medical cannabis users showed frequency of medical cannabis use was associated with sleep problems, they said.

Specifically, more frequent cannabis use was associated with more problems related to waking up at night, as well as problems falling asleep.

Sleep problems associated with frequent medical cannabis use may signal the development of tolerance to the agent. However, frequent users of medical cannabis also maybsuffer pain or other comorbidities, which, in turn, may be linked to more sleep problems.

Either way, Dr. Sznitman said the study might open the door to another treatment option for patients suffering from chronic pain who struggle with sleep.

“If future research shows that the effect of medical cannabis on sleep is a consistent one, then we may be adding a new therapy for sleep problems, which are huge in society and especially in chronic pain patients,” she said.
 

Early days

Commenting on the findings in an interview, Ryan G. Vandrey, PhD, who was not involved in the study, said the findings are in line with previous research.

“I think the results make sense with respect to the data I’ve collected and from what I’ve seen,” said Dr. Vandrey, associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore.

“We typically only want to use sleep medications for short periods of time,” he continued. “When you think about recommended prescribing practices for any hypnotic medication, it’s usually short term, 2 weeks or less. Longer-term use often leads to tolerance, dependence, and withdrawal symptoms when the medication is stopped, which leads to an exacerbation of disordered sleep,” Dr. Vandrey said.

Nevertheless, he urged caution when interpreting the results.

“I think the study warrants caution about long-term daily use of cannabinoids with respect to sleep,” he said. “But we need more detailed evaluations, as the trial wasn’t testing a defined product, specific dose, or dose regimen.

“In addition, this was all done in the context of people with chronic pain and not treating disordered sleep or insomnia, but the study highlights the importance of recognizing that long-term chronic use of cannabis is not likely to fully resolve sleep problems.”

Dr. Sznitman agreed that the research is still in its very early stages.

“We’re still far from saying we have the evidence to support the use of medical cannabis for sleep,” she said. “For in the end it was just a cross-sectional, observational study, so we cannot say anything about cause and effect. But if these results pan out, they could be far-reaching and exciting.”

The study was funded by the University of Haifa and Rambam Hospital in Israel, and by the Evelyn Lipper Foundation. Dr. Sznitman and Dr. Vandrey have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
 

Patients suffering from chronic pain who take medicinal cannabis to initiate and maintain sleep appear to experience short-term benefit, but long-term use may ultimately disrupt slumber, new research shows.

Investigators found whole-plant medical cannabis use was associated with fewer problems with respect to waking up at night, but they also found that frequent medical cannabis use was associated with more problems initiating and maintaining sleep.

LPETTET/Getty Images

A common problem

Estimates suggest chronic pain affects up to 37% of adults in the developed world. Individuals who suffer chronic pain often experience comorbid insomnia, which includes difficulty initiating sleep, sleep disruption, and early morning wakening.

For its part, medical cannabis to treat chronic pain symptoms and manage sleep problems has been widely reported as a prime motivation for medical cannabis use. Indeed, previous studies have concluded that the endocannabinoid system plays a role in sleep regulation, including sleep promotion and maintenance.

In recent years, investigators have reported the beneficial effects of medical cannabis for sleep. Nevertheless, some preclinical research has also concluded that chronic administration of tetrahydrocannabinol may result in tolerance to the sleep-enhancing effects of cannabis.

With that in mind, the researchers set out to examine the potential impact of whole-plant medicinal cannabis on sleep problems experienced by middle-aged patients suffering from chronic pain.

“People are self-reporting that they’re using cannabis for sleep and that it helps, but as we know, just because people are reporting that it works doesn’t mean that it will hold up in research,” Dr. Sznitman said.

The study included 128 individuals (mean age, 61±6 years; 51% females) with chronic neuropathic pain: 66 were medical cannabis users and 62 were not.

Three indicators of insomnia were measured using the 7-point Likert scale to assess issues with sleep initiation and maintenance.

In addition, investigators collected sociodemographic information, as well as data on daily consumption of tobacco, frequency of alcohol use, and pain severity. Finally, they collected patient data on the use of sleep-aid medications during the past month as well as tricyclic antidepressant use.
 

Frequent use, more sleep problems?

On average, medical cannabis users were 3 years younger than their nonusing counterparts (mean age, 60±6 vs. 63±6 years, respectively, P = .003) and more likely to be male (58% vs 40%, respectively, P = .038). Otherwise, the two groups were comparable.

Medical cannabis users reported taking the drug for an average of 4 years, at an average quantity of 31 g per month. The primary mode of administration was smoking (68.6%), followed by oil extracts (21.4%) and vaporization (20%).

Results showed that, of the total sample, 24.1% reported always waking up early and not falling back to sleep, 20.2% reported always having difficulty falling asleep, and 27.2% reported always waking up during the night.

After adjusting for patient age, sex, pain level, and use of sleep medications and antidepressants, medical cannabis use was associated with fewer problems with waking up at night, compared with nonmedical cannabis use. No differences were found between groups with respect to problems falling asleep or waking up early without being able to fall back to sleep, Dr. Sznitman and associates reported.

The final analysis of a subsample of patients that only included medical cannabis users showed frequency of medical cannabis use was associated with sleep problems, they said.

Specifically, more frequent cannabis use was associated with more problems related to waking up at night, as well as problems falling asleep.

Sleep problems associated with frequent medical cannabis use may signal the development of tolerance to the agent. However, frequent users of medical cannabis also maybsuffer pain or other comorbidities, which, in turn, may be linked to more sleep problems.

Either way, Dr. Sznitman said the study might open the door to another treatment option for patients suffering from chronic pain who struggle with sleep.

“If future research shows that the effect of medical cannabis on sleep is a consistent one, then we may be adding a new therapy for sleep problems, which are huge in society and especially in chronic pain patients,” she said.
 

Early days

Commenting on the findings in an interview, Ryan G. Vandrey, PhD, who was not involved in the study, said the findings are in line with previous research.

“I think the results make sense with respect to the data I’ve collected and from what I’ve seen,” said Dr. Vandrey, associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore.

“We typically only want to use sleep medications for short periods of time,” he continued. “When you think about recommended prescribing practices for any hypnotic medication, it’s usually short term, 2 weeks or less. Longer-term use often leads to tolerance, dependence, and withdrawal symptoms when the medication is stopped, which leads to an exacerbation of disordered sleep,” Dr. Vandrey said.

Nevertheless, he urged caution when interpreting the results.

“I think the study warrants caution about long-term daily use of cannabinoids with respect to sleep,” he said. “But we need more detailed evaluations, as the trial wasn’t testing a defined product, specific dose, or dose regimen.

“In addition, this was all done in the context of people with chronic pain and not treating disordered sleep or insomnia, but the study highlights the importance of recognizing that long-term chronic use of cannabis is not likely to fully resolve sleep problems.”

Dr. Sznitman agreed that the research is still in its very early stages.

“We’re still far from saying we have the evidence to support the use of medical cannabis for sleep,” she said. “For in the end it was just a cross-sectional, observational study, so we cannot say anything about cause and effect. But if these results pan out, they could be far-reaching and exciting.”

The study was funded by the University of Haifa and Rambam Hospital in Israel, and by the Evelyn Lipper Foundation. Dr. Sznitman and Dr. Vandrey have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
 

Patients suffering from chronic pain who take medicinal cannabis to initiate and maintain sleep appear to experience short-term benefit, but long-term use may ultimately disrupt slumber, new research shows.

Investigators found whole-plant medical cannabis use was associated with fewer problems with respect to waking up at night, but they also found that frequent medical cannabis use was associated with more problems initiating and maintaining sleep.

LPETTET/Getty Images

A common problem

Estimates suggest chronic pain affects up to 37% of adults in the developed world. Individuals who suffer chronic pain often experience comorbid insomnia, which includes difficulty initiating sleep, sleep disruption, and early morning wakening.

For its part, medical cannabis to treat chronic pain symptoms and manage sleep problems has been widely reported as a prime motivation for medical cannabis use. Indeed, previous studies have concluded that the endocannabinoid system plays a role in sleep regulation, including sleep promotion and maintenance.

In recent years, investigators have reported the beneficial effects of medical cannabis for sleep. Nevertheless, some preclinical research has also concluded that chronic administration of tetrahydrocannabinol may result in tolerance to the sleep-enhancing effects of cannabis.

With that in mind, the researchers set out to examine the potential impact of whole-plant medicinal cannabis on sleep problems experienced by middle-aged patients suffering from chronic pain.

“People are self-reporting that they’re using cannabis for sleep and that it helps, but as we know, just because people are reporting that it works doesn’t mean that it will hold up in research,” Dr. Sznitman said.

The study included 128 individuals (mean age, 61±6 years; 51% females) with chronic neuropathic pain: 66 were medical cannabis users and 62 were not.

Three indicators of insomnia were measured using the 7-point Likert scale to assess issues with sleep initiation and maintenance.

In addition, investigators collected sociodemographic information, as well as data on daily consumption of tobacco, frequency of alcohol use, and pain severity. Finally, they collected patient data on the use of sleep-aid medications during the past month as well as tricyclic antidepressant use.
 

Frequent use, more sleep problems?

On average, medical cannabis users were 3 years younger than their nonusing counterparts (mean age, 60±6 vs. 63±6 years, respectively, P = .003) and more likely to be male (58% vs 40%, respectively, P = .038). Otherwise, the two groups were comparable.

Medical cannabis users reported taking the drug for an average of 4 years, at an average quantity of 31 g per month. The primary mode of administration was smoking (68.6%), followed by oil extracts (21.4%) and vaporization (20%).

Results showed that, of the total sample, 24.1% reported always waking up early and not falling back to sleep, 20.2% reported always having difficulty falling asleep, and 27.2% reported always waking up during the night.

After adjusting for patient age, sex, pain level, and use of sleep medications and antidepressants, medical cannabis use was associated with fewer problems with waking up at night, compared with nonmedical cannabis use. No differences were found between groups with respect to problems falling asleep or waking up early without being able to fall back to sleep, Dr. Sznitman and associates reported.

The final analysis of a subsample of patients that only included medical cannabis users showed frequency of medical cannabis use was associated with sleep problems, they said.

Specifically, more frequent cannabis use was associated with more problems related to waking up at night, as well as problems falling asleep.

Sleep problems associated with frequent medical cannabis use may signal the development of tolerance to the agent. However, frequent users of medical cannabis also maybsuffer pain or other comorbidities, which, in turn, may be linked to more sleep problems.

Either way, Dr. Sznitman said the study might open the door to another treatment option for patients suffering from chronic pain who struggle with sleep.

“If future research shows that the effect of medical cannabis on sleep is a consistent one, then we may be adding a new therapy for sleep problems, which are huge in society and especially in chronic pain patients,” she said.
 

Early days

Commenting on the findings in an interview, Ryan G. Vandrey, PhD, who was not involved in the study, said the findings are in line with previous research.

“I think the results make sense with respect to the data I’ve collected and from what I’ve seen,” said Dr. Vandrey, associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore.

“We typically only want to use sleep medications for short periods of time,” he continued. “When you think about recommended prescribing practices for any hypnotic medication, it’s usually short term, 2 weeks or less. Longer-term use often leads to tolerance, dependence, and withdrawal symptoms when the medication is stopped, which leads to an exacerbation of disordered sleep,” Dr. Vandrey said.

Nevertheless, he urged caution when interpreting the results.

“I think the study warrants caution about long-term daily use of cannabinoids with respect to sleep,” he said. “But we need more detailed evaluations, as the trial wasn’t testing a defined product, specific dose, or dose regimen.

“In addition, this was all done in the context of people with chronic pain and not treating disordered sleep or insomnia, but the study highlights the importance of recognizing that long-term chronic use of cannabis is not likely to fully resolve sleep problems.”

Dr. Sznitman agreed that the research is still in its very early stages.

“We’re still far from saying we have the evidence to support the use of medical cannabis for sleep,” she said. “For in the end it was just a cross-sectional, observational study, so we cannot say anything about cause and effect. But if these results pan out, they could be far-reaching and exciting.”

The study was funded by the University of Haifa and Rambam Hospital in Israel, and by the Evelyn Lipper Foundation. Dr. Sznitman and Dr. Vandrey have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.