Unintended consequences of United States chronic pain guidelines
- PDF / 537,978 Bytes
- 5 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 103 Downloads / 181 Views
COMMENTARY
Unintended consequences of United States chronic pain guidelines Kathleen Adams1 · Michael Guerra2 Received: 13 December 2019 / Accepted: 18 August 2020 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
Abstract In 2015, the United States of America (USA) Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released an issue brief that addressed opioid addiction, opioid overdoses, and opioid-related deaths as a public health concern within the country. After collaboration with state and stakeholder organizations, the HHS identified three target initiatives aimed to mitigate the negative consequences of opioid use within the USA. One initiative included implementation of guidelines to help reduce inappropriate opioid prescribing with a goal to reduce morbidity and mortality. The aim of this commentary is to discuss the misapplication and unintended consequences of the USA CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain. Keywords Chronic pain · Guideline · Opioids · United States
Background In 2015, the United States of America (USA) Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released an issue brief that addressed illicit and prescription opioid addiction, opioid overdoses, and opioid-related deaths as a public health concern within the country [1]. The USA HHS reflected on the steady incline of opioid-related deaths over the previous two decades and the need to respond to the concerning trends [1]. After collaboration with state and stakeholder organizations, the HHS identified three target initiatives aimed to mitigate the negative consequences of opioid use within the USA [1]. The three target initiatives were 1) expanding access to medication-assisted treatment (MAT), 2) expanding use and distribution of naloxone, and 3) targeting opioid prescribing practices [1]. Of note, MAT is the combination of medication (methadone, buprenorphine, or naltrexone) and behavioral therapies used for treatment of opioid use disorders [2]. These three target initiatives were identified because they had limited, but evolving research to support their effectiveness in reducing the misuse of * Kathleen Adams [email protected] 1
Department of Pharmacy Practice, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA
Department of Pharmacy, Yale New Haven Hospital, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
2
opioid medications [1]. The first target initiative, expanding MAT, was identified as an underutilized treatment modality with the potential to decrease morbidity and mortality. The second target initiative, expanding the use and distribution of naloxone, was identified because certain communities reported a decrease in overdose death rates where naloxone distribution programs were implemented [1]. The final target initiative, targeting opioid prescribing practices, was two-fold. The first aspect was to optimize prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) [1]. PDMPs are state-run electronic databases that monitor prescribing of medications with abuse potential, such as controlled substances [1]. PDMPs enable prescribers and pharmac
Data Loading...
