Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Protocol
Strategies for treating acute pain in patients with opioid dependence: a scoping review protocol
  1. Sarah Levine1,
  2. Megha Andrews1,
  3. Benjamin Saracco1,
  4. Matthew Salzman2
  1. 1Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, Camden, New Jersey, USA
  2. 2Emergency Medicine, Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, Camden, New Jersey, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Matthew Salzman; salzman-matthew{at}cooperhealth.edu

Abstract

Introduction People who are dependent on opioids experience acute pain similar to other individuals. However, treating acute pain in these patients renders unique challenges such as opioid-induced hyperalgesia, opioid tolerance, withdrawal and stigma from healthcare providers. Thus, it is crucial to identify effective strategies for treating acute pain in this population and to highlight gaps in knowledge to create a high standard of care. The main objective of the proposed scoping review is to identify current strategies for treating the acute pain in individuals with opioid dependence or use disorder.

Methods and analysis MEDLINE via the PubMed interface, Embase and Cochrane Central, Web of Science: Conference Proceedings Citation Index and Google Scholar will be searched. Forward and backward citation searching of the final included studies will also be conducted. Two independent reviewers will screen the titles and abstracts of sources, review and assess relevant full-text studies and extract data. Data will be presented in a diagram and will contribute to a qualitative thematic analysis.

Ethics and dissemination Data will be gathered from publicly accessible sources, so ethics approval is not necessary. The results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed journal and reported at conferences related to addiction medicine.

Trial registration number 10.17605/OSF.IO/BG6SJ.

  • pain management
  • patient-centered care
  • adult palliative care
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY

  • Synthesis of evidence will be conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews.

  • This scoping review will encompass a wide breadth of the topic.

  • The extent of the scoping review will be limited by the number of existing studies on the topic.

Introduction

Epidemiological context

The USA is in the midst of a decades-long, devastating opioid epidemic. More than 564 000 people died from opioid overdose from 1999 to 2020.1 The number of national opioid overdose deaths has been rising over the past 20 years, most recently rising from 46 802 opioid deaths in 2018 to 68 630 in 2020.1 In 2019, 10.1 million people aged 12 years and older misused opioids during that year.2 In 2018, the rate of opioid-related hospital stays in the USA was 286.1 per 100 000 people.3 Opioid users also have increased rates of emergency department visits and hospitalisations, with healthcare utilisations having increased substantially in recent decades.4 Three million people in the USA and 16 million people worldwide currently or previously suffered from opioid use disorder (OUD).5

OUD is defined by the American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition as a desire to obtain and use opioids despite personal, social and professional consequences.6 An individual suffering from OUD experiences an overpowering need to use opioids, increased opioid tolerance and withdrawal symptoms if opioid use is stopped.5 Long-term use of opioids also results in dependence, which means that if the person were to stop taking, he/she would experience withdrawal symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, abdominal cramps, anxiety, sweating, lacrimation, rhinorrhoea, muscle spasms/tension, aches/pains, irritability, insomnia and more.7 8

Over the past decade, fentanyl and other highly potent synthetic opioids have replaced heroin as the dominant opioid used illicitly.9 10 Besides overdose, there are many adverse effects of long-term opioid use. Opioids can negatively affect many body systems such as gastrointestinal, musculoskeletal, respiratory, cardiovascular, immune, endocrine and central nervous systems.11

Certain groups of people are more likely to use opioids and develop a use disorder than others. People with increased rates of OUD are non-Hispanic white people, men, 18–25-year olds, those who make less than $20 000 per year and those who are uninsured.12 In contrast, opioid overdoses are the highest among black and indigenous populations, highlighting racial inequities in accessing healthcare and substance use disorder treatment services.13 Factors such as level of education, housing stability and employment status have also been found to have a significant association with the frequency of opioid use.14 It is also known that people with pre-existing mental illness are more likely to initiate opioid use and become dependent on opioids, as drug use may relieve symptoms of the mental illness.15

Acute pain in individuals with OUD

Acute pain is defined as a physiological response to an adverse stimulus associated with surgery, trauma or acute illness.16 Patients with OUD are at high risk for transmissible and non-transmissible infections, as well as acute traumatic injuries, all of which can cause acute and extreme pain.17 Unlike the general population, there are additional challenges that come with treating acute pain in individuals with opioid dependence or use disorder. One challenge is opioid-induced hyperalgesia in which patients taking long-term opioids have an increased sensitivity to pain and an extreme pain response out of proportion to opioid-naive patients.18 Tolerance presents another challenge in treating acute pain in this patient population. Opioids are often used for treating severe acute pain, but the standard doses of opioids that would be used for an opioid-naive patient will not work effectively in an opioid-tolerant person.19 Another challenge is the symptoms of withdrawal. Opioid-dependent patients being treated for acute pain are at risk of withdrawal symptoms if opioid substitution therapy is not initiated promptly. This can happen if there are long wait times or if the medical provider refuses to prescribe opioids to treat the patient’s pain.20 Withdrawal symptoms cause additional suffering to the patient who is already experiencing acute pain. Lastly, a challenge that opioid users face when accessing any type of healthcare is the stigma from healthcare workers. It is well known that opioid users can face discrimination and receive suboptimal care in a healthcare setting due to stigma against drug use.21–24 Many healthcare providers prefer not to work with substance users who experience pain because they find this work challenging and unsatisfactory.25

Rationale for this scoping review

The main objective of the proposed scoping review is to identify the current best practices for treating the acute pain in individuals with opioid dependence or use disorder. It is anticipated that the results of the scoping review will inform healthcare providers of the best standard of acute pain management for this population and identify gaps for further research. The results will hopefully play a role in ensuring that opioid users receive the highest standard of care for acute pain.

A preliminary search of MEDLINE, Embase and scoping review protocol registries including the Open Science Framework was conducted. Only one previous review has looked at the management of acute pain in patients with opioid dependence.26 This 2020 review included patients taking medication for OUD, whereas this scoping review includes patients with opioid dependence regardless of treatment status. The previous study was also a rapid review which used a narrower search strategy, yielding less information sources. The search strategy for this scoping review is intentionally broader to try and capture all relevant literature on the treatment of acute pain in patients who are opioid dependent.

Methods and analysis

The proposed scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews.27 We registered this protocol through Open Science Framework (DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/BG6SJ). The study began in August 2021 and will conclude in May 2024.

Stage 1: defining the research question

Since current research on treating acute pain in patients who are opioid dependent is limited, we define a broad research question to capture a large set of data that exists within the field. This scoping review answers the question: what is currently the best standard of care for treating acute pain in patients who are dependent on opioids?

Stage 2: identifying relevant studies (search strategies)

The database search strategies were developed in conjunction with a trained medical librarian information specialist (table 1). No search limiters or filters will be used such as language, country of publication or study design. The information sources searched include MEDLINE via the PubMed interface, Embase and Cochrane Central. Forward and backward citation searching will be conducted on studies identified for final inclusion. Keyword searching in Google Scholar will be conducted and the top 500 results will be included and a search for conference proceedings will be conducted in the Web of Science: Conference Proceedings Citation Index, both as part of the grey literature search process.

Table 1

Search strategies for all databases

Stage 3: screening studies for inclusion

We will export articles obtained through the search strategy to Rayyan or Covidence software to facilitate the screening process. Reviewers will manually resolve duplicates identified by the software. We will note the number of records at each stage.

Phase 1 of screening will be screening for relevance. Reviewers will independently review papers based on the title and abstract of each study. Reviewers will determine if the study is eligible based on adherence to inclusion criteria. This will be determined by checking if the title or abstract includes human subjects with opioid dependence receiving treatment for acute pain. All papers that are marked as eligible will be reviewed in phase 2.

Each will review 10% of the other’s papers. A kappa calculation will be conducted to verify inter-rater reliability (target value of 0.8 or greater). Any disagreements between the reviewers will be resolved through discussion and with an additional reviewer.

Phase 2 will be full-text reviews. All full-text reviews will be conducted independently by both reviewers. If necessary, reviewers will contact the authors of papers to request missing or additional information. Any disagreements in phase 2 will be resolved through discussion with an additional reviewer. Inclusion criteria for full-text review will include:

  • Population: the paper involves human subjects with opioid dependence receiving treatment for acute pain. The study will be excluded if it involves patients receiving treatment for chronic pain or withdrawal management. There will be no restriction on age range.

  • Outcomes: outcomes involve effectiveness of pain treatment used (patient satisfaction, pain scale, etc).

  • Context: there will be no limitation on the year of publication or type of institution that conducted the study.

  • Study design: papers included will include original research articles (any study design) and review articles including, but not limited to, systematic and scoping reviews, meta-analyses, narrative reviews, qualitative reviews and rapid reviews. Qualitative works, such as texts in magazines and newspapers, as well as opinion pieces, will be excluded.

  • Intervention: all intervention types will be included as long as the study meets the above criteria.

Stage 4: data extraction

Data will be extracted from papers included in the scoping review by two independent reviewers using a data extraction tool developed by the reviewers. All of these items may not pertain to each article. If data points not previously anticipated are encountered, we will record them if necessary.

The data extracted will include author(s); year of publication; country of study; study type; aspects of study design: (1) aim/purpose, (2) research question, (3) intervention, (4) description of primary outcome(s), (5) descriptive statistics of outcome measures and (6) measures of significance conducted; and results of study: (1) primary outcome results, (2) conclusions of study and (3) disclosed limitations of study.

Patient characteristics that will be extracted include (1) type of acute pain including, but not limited to, acute pain, breakthrough pain, musculoskeletal pain, nociceptive pain, perioperative pain, postoperative pain, procedural pain and (2) treatment type: medication used for acute pain management or absence of treatment. The treatment outcome that will be extracted is the effectiveness of pain treatment used (patient satisfaction, pain scale, etc). We will also include a critical appraisal of individual sources of evidence using JBI validated critical appraisal tools: https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools, a synthesis of results and discussion of study results.

Stage 5: analysis and presentation of results

Data will be reported in narrative, tabular and diagrammatic forms. A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram will be used to determine the final studies included in the scoping review. We will summarise various interventions and their outcomes in a tabular form.

Themes that are identified during the scoping review process will be discussed. Articles with similar interventions and themes will be grouped together, and these results will be presented as they arise during the process.

Overall conclusions from the scoping review as well as limitations encountered will be discussed. There will also be a discussion of opportunities for future research.

Patient and public involvement

None.

Ethics and dissemination

Data will be gathered from publicly accessible sources, so ethics approval is not necessary. The results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed journal and reported at conferences related to addiction medicine.

Ethics statements

Patient consent for publication

References

Footnotes

  • Contributors SL helped conceptualise the project, coordinated search terms for the scoping review, drafted the initial manuscript and revised the manuscript after review. MA also helped conceptualise the project, draft the initial manuscript and revised the manuscript after review. BS constructed the search protocol, facilitated methodology and helped plan the study. MS supervised all aspects of this manuscript, is the corresponding author, initially conceptualised the project, revised and submitted the manuscript.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.