The prescription opioid conundrum: 21st century solutions to a millennia-long problem

ABSTRACT

Health-care professionals are faced with a daunting task: balancing appropriate care for chronic pain with their responsibility to keep patients and others safe from treatment-related harm. Whereas opioids have historically been considered an effective tool in the analgesic armamentarium, the rise of opioid abuse has caused the pendulum to swing away from prescribing opioids to an emphasis on safety. This paradigm shift risks neglecting the very real consequences of untreated/undertreated pain. Using data from the medical literature, this review examines influences on the real and perceived benefit-to-risk ratio for opioids and provides clinicians with a practical approach to prescribing opioids that minimizes the risk for abuse/misuse. There is appreciable clinical trial and observational evidence of efficacy/effectiveness with opioids used for pain management over the short or long term when considered in the context of pharmacologic alternatives. Enhancing the relative safety and minimizing the risk for abuse/misuse may be achieved through proactive prescription practices that include careful patient selection, risk assessment, individualized and multimodal treatment plans with established goals, initiating opioid treatment cautiously with an exit plan in place, ongoing assessments of response to therapy, and routine patient monitoring. Additionally, prescribing opioids with a lower potential for abuse or misuse (e.g. abuse-deterrent formulations) may provide a benefit. Using a pragmatic approach to prescribing practices, we postulate that the balance between benefit and risk can be favorable for opioid therapy in select patients, even for long-term treatment of chronic pain.

KEYWORDS:

• Abuse
• chronic pain
• opioids
• safe prescribing

Acknowledgments

Medical writing and editorial support, funded by Daiichi Sankyo, was provided by Crystal Murcia and Kelly M Cameron from JB Ashtin, who developed the first draft based on an author-approved outline and assisted in implementing author revisions throughout the editorial process. Daiichi Sankyo had the opportunity to review the manuscript draft for factual accuracy; the authors maintained full control of the manuscript and determined the final content.

Author contributions

Michael J. Brennan and Jeffry A. Gudin had full access to all the data and take responsibility for the integrity of the article. Both authors were involved in planning the study concept and designing the manuscript, interpreting the literature, drafting and critically reviewing the manuscript, and approving the final content submitted for publication.

Declaration of interest

Michael J. Brennan has received honoraria or speaking fees and/or has served as consultant for Purdue Pharma, Depomed, Collegium Pharmaceutical, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, kaléo, CARA Therapeutics, Pfizer, and Salix Pharmaceuticals. He also owns stock in CARA Therapeutics. Jeffry A. Gudin has received honoraria or speaking fees and/or has served as consultant for AstraZeneca, BDSI, Collegium Pharmaceutical, Daiichi Sankyo, Depomed, kaléo, Mallinckrodt, Nektar, Pernix, Purdue Pharma, Salix Pharmaceuticals, and Scilex Pharmaceuticals.

Peer reviewer

Peer reviewers on this manuscript have no relevant financial or other relationships to disclose.