Background: Long-term opioid treatment in patients with chronic pain is often ineffective and possibly harmful. These patients are often managed by general practitioners, who are calling for a clear overview of effective opioid reduction strategies for primary care. Aim: Evaluate effectiveness of opioid reduction strategies applicable in primary care for patients with chronic pain on long-term opioid treatment. Design: Systematic review of controlled trials and cohort studies. Method Literature search conducted in Embase, Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane CENTRAL register of trials, CINAHL, Google Scholar and PsychInfo. Studies evaluating opioid reduction interventions applicable in primary care among adults with long-term opioid treatment for chronic non-cancer pain were included. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) 2.0 tool or Risk-of-Bias in Non-randomized studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Narrative synthesis was performed due to clinical heterogeneity in study designs and types of interventions. Results: Five RCTs and five cohort studies were included (total n= 1717, range 35-985) exploring various opioid reduction strategies. Six studies had high RoB, three moderate RoB, and one low RoB. Three cohort studies investigating a GP supervised opioid taper (critical ROBINS-I), an integrative pain treatment (moderate ROBINS-I) and group medical visits (critical ROBINS-I) demonstrated significant between-group opioid reduction. Conclusion: Results carefully point in the direction of a GP supervised tapering and multidisciplinary group therapeutic sessions to reduce long term opioid treatment. However, due to high risk of bias and small sample sizes, no firm conclusions can be made demonstrating need for more high-quality research.

ObjectivesWorldwide the use of opioids, both doctor-prescribed and illicit, has increased. In most countries, opioids are first prescribed by general practitioners (GPs). Identifying factors that influence GPs’ opioid prescription decision-making may help reduce opioid misuse and overuse. We performed a systematic review to gain insight into GP attitudes towards opioid prescription and to identify possible solutions to promote changes in the field of primary care.Design and settingSystematic review of qualitative studies reporting GPs’ attitudes towards opioid use in non-cancer pain management.MethodsWe searched Embase, Medline, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane, PsychInfo, Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Google Scholar. Two independent reviewers selected studies based on prespecified eligibility criteria. Study quality was evaluated with the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist, and their results were analysed using thematic analysis. Quality of evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation—Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research approach.ResultsWe included 14 studies. Four themes were established using thematic analyses: (1) GPs caught in the middle of ‘the opioid crisis’; (2) Are opioids always bad? (3) GPs’ weighing scale, taking patient-related and therapeutic relationship-related factors into account; and (4) GPs’ sense of powerlessness—lack of alternatives, support by specialists and lack of time in justifying non-prescriptions.ConclusionGP attitudes towards opioid prescribing for non-cancer pain are subject to several GP-related, patient-related and therapeutic relationship-related factors. Raising GP and patient awareness on the inefficacy of opioids in chronic non-cancer pain management and providing non-opioid alternatives to treat chronic pain might help to promote opioid reduction in primary care. More research is needed to develop practical guidelines on appropriate opioid prescribing, tapering off opioid use and adopting effective communication strategies.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020194561.Cite Now

Background Dealing with the opioid crisis, medical doctors are keen to learn how to best treat opioid dependency in patients with chronic non-cancer pain. Opioid replacement therapy is commonly used, but success rates vary widely. Since many patients still experience severe withdrawal symptoms, additional interventions are necessary. Objective To review the effectiveness of interventions in the treatment of withdrawal symptoms during opioid tapering or acute withdrawal in patients with long-term non-cancer pain. Methods A systematic review was conducted in Embase.com, MEDLINE, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Cochrane CENTRAL register of trials. Studies eligible for inclusion were (non-)randomized controlled trials in adults with long-term opioid prescriptions for non-cancer pain. Included trials had to compare a non-opioid intervention to placebo, usual care, no treatment, or non-opioid drug and had to report on withdrawal symptoms as an outcome. Study quality was assessed with the 2.0 Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) tool. Evidence quality was rated following the GRADE approach. Results One trial (n = 21, some concerns regarding RoB) compared Varenicline to placebo. There was no statistically significant between-group reduction of withdrawal symptoms (moderate-quality evidence). Conclusions Evidence from clinical trials on interventions reducing withdrawal symptoms is scarce. Based on one trial with a small sample size, no firm conclusion can be drawn. Meanwhile, doctors are in dire need for therapeutic options to tackle withdrawal symptoms while tapering patients with prescription opioid dependence. We hope this review draws attention to this unfortunate research gap so that future research can provide doctors with answers.

No abstract

No abstract