Trajectories of prescription opioid tapering in patients with chronic non-cancer pain: a retrospective cohort study, 2015-2020.

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY Pain Medicine Pub Date : 2024-04-03 DOI:10.1093/pm/pnae002
Monica Jung, Ting Xia, Jenni Ilomäki, Christopher Pearce, Suzanne Nielsen
{"title":"Trajectories of prescription opioid tapering in patients with chronic non-cancer pain: a retrospective cohort study, 2015-2020.","authors":"Monica Jung, Ting Xia, Jenni Ilomäki, Christopher Pearce, Suzanne Nielsen","doi":"10.1093/pm/pnae002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To identify common opioid tapering trajectories among patients commencing opioid taper from long-term opioid therapy for chronic non-cancer pain and to examine patient-level characteristics associated with these different trajectories.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A retrospective cohort study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Australian primary care.</p><p><strong>Subjects: </strong>Patients prescribed opioid analgesics between 2015 and 2020.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Group-based trajectory modeling and multinomial logistic regression analysis were conducted to determine tapering trajectories and to examine demographic and clinical factors associated with the different trajectories.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 3369 patients commenced a taper from long-term opioid therapy. Six distinct opioid tapering trajectories were identified: low dose / completed taper (12.9%), medium dose / faster taper (12.2%), medium dose / gradual taper (6.5%), low dose / noncompleted taper (21.3%), medium dose / noncompleted taper (30.4%), and high dose / noncompleted taper (16.7%). A completed tapering trajectory from a high opioid dose was not identified. Among patients prescribed medium opioid doses, those who completed their taper were more likely to have higher geographically derived socioeconomic status (relative risk ratio [RRR], 1.067; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.001-1.137) and less likely to have sleep disorders (RRR, 0.661; 95% CI, 0.463-0.945) than were those who didn't complete their taper. Patients who didn't complete their taper were more likely to be prescribed strong opioids (eg, morphine, oxycodone), regardless of whether they were tapered from low (RRR, 1.444; 95% CI, 1.138-1.831) or high (RRR, 1.344; 95% CI, 1.027-1.760) doses.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Those prescribed strong opioids and high doses appear to be less likely to complete tapering. Further studies are needed to evaluate the clinical outcomes associated with the identified trajectories.</p>","PeriodicalId":19744,"journal":{"name":"Pain Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10988287/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/pm/pnae002","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To identify common opioid tapering trajectories among patients commencing opioid taper from long-term opioid therapy for chronic non-cancer pain and to examine patient-level characteristics associated with these different trajectories.

Design: A retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Australian primary care.

Subjects: Patients prescribed opioid analgesics between 2015 and 2020.

Methods: Group-based trajectory modeling and multinomial logistic regression analysis were conducted to determine tapering trajectories and to examine demographic and clinical factors associated with the different trajectories.

Results: A total of 3369 patients commenced a taper from long-term opioid therapy. Six distinct opioid tapering trajectories were identified: low dose / completed taper (12.9%), medium dose / faster taper (12.2%), medium dose / gradual taper (6.5%), low dose / noncompleted taper (21.3%), medium dose / noncompleted taper (30.4%), and high dose / noncompleted taper (16.7%). A completed tapering trajectory from a high opioid dose was not identified. Among patients prescribed medium opioid doses, those who completed their taper were more likely to have higher geographically derived socioeconomic status (relative risk ratio [RRR], 1.067; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.001-1.137) and less likely to have sleep disorders (RRR, 0.661; 95% CI, 0.463-0.945) than were those who didn't complete their taper. Patients who didn't complete their taper were more likely to be prescribed strong opioids (eg, morphine, oxycodone), regardless of whether they were tapered from low (RRR, 1.444; 95% CI, 1.138-1.831) or high (RRR, 1.344; 95% CI, 1.027-1.760) doses.

Conclusions: Those prescribed strong opioids and high doses appear to be less likely to complete tapering. Further studies are needed to evaluate the clinical outcomes associated with the identified trajectories.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
慢性非癌性疼痛患者处方阿片类药物减量的轨迹:2015-2020 年回顾性队列研究。
目的确定慢性非癌性疼痛患者从长期阿片类药物治疗开始逐渐减量的常见轨迹,并研究与这些不同轨迹相关的患者特征:设计:回顾性队列研究。地点:澳大利亚初级医疗机构。澳大利亚初级医疗机构:2015年至2020年间开具阿片类镇痛药处方的患者:方法:进行基于群体的轨迹建模和多项式逻辑回归分析,以确定渐减轨迹,并研究与不同轨迹相关的人口统计学和临床因素:共有3,369名患者开始从长期阿片类药物治疗中减量。确定了六种不同的阿片类药物减量轨迹:低剂量,完成减量(12.9%);中等剂量,快速减量(12.2%);中等剂量,逐渐减量(6.5%);低剂量,未完成减量(21.3%);中等剂量,未完成减量(30.4%);高剂量,未完成减量(16.7%)。未发现从阿片类药物高剂量开始的完成减量轨迹。与未完成减量的患者相比,开具中等阿片类药物剂量的患者中,完成减量的患者更有可能具有较高的地域社会经济地位(相对风险比[RRR],1.067;95% 置信区间[CI],1.001-1.137),而且不太可能有睡眠障碍(RRR,0.661;95% CI,0.463-0.945)。未完成减量的患者更有可能被处方强阿片类药物(如吗啡、羟考酮),无论他们是从低剂量(RRR,1.444;95% CI,1.138-1.831)还是高剂量(RRR,1.344;95% CI,1.027-1.760)开始减量:结论:处方强效阿片类药物和高剂量的患者似乎不太可能完成减量。结论:强效阿片类药物和大剂量处方者完成减量的可能性较低,需要进一步研究以评估与已识别轨迹相关的临床结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Pain Medicine
Pain Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
3.20%
发文量
187
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Pain Medicine is a multi-disciplinary journal dedicated to pain clinicians, educators and researchers with an interest in pain from various medical specialties such as pain medicine, anaesthesiology, family practice, internal medicine, neurology, neurological surgery, orthopaedic spine surgery, psychiatry, and rehabilitation medicine as well as related health disciplines such as psychology, neuroscience, nursing, nurse practitioner, physical therapy, and integrative health.
期刊最新文献
Case-Based Peer Teaching for Pain Medicine Fellows: A Curriculum for Diverse Residency Backgrounds Exploring new educational approaches in neuropathic pain: Assessing accuracy and consistency of AI responses from GPT-3.5 and GPT-4. Pudendal nerve entrapment syndrome: Clinical features, diagnosis, and management. Assessment of chronic pain and its association with functional capacity in patients with HTLV-1. Examination of a repaired medial meniscus: ultrasound's forte.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1