In the United States, from 1999 to 2019, opioid overdose, either regularly prescribed or illegally acquired, was the cause of death for nearly 500,000 people. In addition to this pronounced mortality burden that has increased gradually over time, opioid overdose has significant morbidity with severe risks and side effects. As a result, opioid misuse is a cause for concern and is considered an epidemic. This article examines the trends and consequences of the opioid epidemic presented in recent international literature, reflecting on the causes of this phenomenon and the possible strategies to address it. The detailed analysis of 33 international articles highlights numerous impacts in the social, public health, economic, and political spheres. The prescription opioid epidemic is an almost exclusively North American problem. This phenomenon should be carefully evaluated from a healthcare systems perspective, for consequential risks and harms of aggressive opioid prescription practices for pain management. Appropriate policies are required to manage opioid use and prevent abuse efficiently. Examples of proper policies vary, such as the use of validated questionnaires for the early identification of patients at risk of addiction, the effective use of regional and national prescription monitoring programs, and the proper dissemination and translation of knowledge to highlight the risks of prescription opioid abuse.

Telemedicine represents a major opportunity to facilitate continued assistance for patients with chronic pain and improve their access to care. Preliminary data show that an improvement can be expected of the monitoring, treatment adherence, assessment of treatment effect including the emotional distress associated with pain. Moreover, this approach seems to be convenient and cost-effective, and particularly suitable for personalized treatment. Nevertheless, several open issues must be highlighted such as identification of assessment tools, implementation of monitoring instruments, and ability to evaluate personal needs and expectations. Open questions exist, such as how to evaluate the need for medical intervention and interventional procedures, and how to define when a clinical examination is required for certain conditions. In this context, it is necessary to establish dynamic protocols that provide the right balance between face-to-face visits and telemedicine. Useful tips are provided to start an efficient experience. More data are needed to develop precise operating procedures. In the meantime, the first experiences from such settings can pave the way to initiate effective care pathways in chronic pain.

Pain remains one of the main reasons for medical consultation worldwide: moderate- to severe-intensity pain occurs in 19% of adult Europeans, seriously affecting the quality of their social and working lives. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are not recommended for long-term use and a careful surveillance to monitor for toxicity and efficacy is critical. This study aims to assess: 1) the pattern of use of NSAIDs and opioids in a population covered by a cloud-based pharmacovigilance surveillance system; and 2) potential inappropriate use. A retrospective 18-months systematic analysis on patients’ pain treatment was performed. The primary endpoint was evaluating the prevalence of NSAIDs and opioids use and the duration of therapy regimen. The secondary endpoint was to investigate the prevalence of NSAIDs taken for >21 consecutive days concomitant with drugs for peptic ulcer and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GORD) or antiplatelet drugs. The yearly cost for individual users of concomitant NSAIDs for more than 21 consecutive days and of GORD medications has been estimated. A total of 3,050 subjects with chronic pain were enrolled; 97% of them took NSAIDs for >21 consecutive days; about one-fourth of these users also received drugs for peptic ulcer and GORD (Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical code A02B). The yearly cost foran individual who uses NSAIDs for >21 consecutive days as well as concomitant GORD medications is 61.23 euros. In total, 238 subjects (8%) using NSAIDs for >21 days also received one antiplatelet agent. About 11% of subjects received opioids at least once and only 2% of them carried on the therapy for more than 90 consecutive days. In evaluating the escalation in dosage as a proxy of dependence risk, this study shows no dosage escalation in our cohort of chronic pain population - that is to say we show no risk of dependence.

Due to a lack of published evidence on the topic, a modified Delphi approach was used to develop recommendations useful for chronic pain management during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Focusing on the available literature and personal clinical expertise, an Italian board of nine professionals from different disciplines identified four main topics: prevention of chronic pain, treatment of chronic pain, consequences of inadequate treatment, and perspectives. They elaborated a semi-structured questionnaire. A multidisciplinary panel of experts in the field of pain management was requested to comment on the statements. Based on the answers provided, a structured questionnaire was prepared (Round 1). It included 21 statements divided into three categories (organizational issues; diagnosis and therapies; telemedicine and future perspectives). A five-point Likert scale was adopted. The threshold for consensus was set at a minimum of 70% of the number of respondents (level of agreement ≥ 4, Agree or Strongly Agree). A final questionnaire with rephrasing of the statements that did not reach the consensus threshold was elaborated (Round 2). A total of 29 clinicians were included in the panel. Twenty clinicians (69%) responded in both the first and second round. After two rounds, consensus (≥70%) was achieved in 20 out of 21 statements. The lack of consensus was recorded for the statement regarding the management of post-COVID pain (55%; Median 4; IQR 2.3). Another statement on telemedicine reached the threshold in the first round (70%), but the value was not confirmed in Round 2 (65%; Median 4; IQR 2). Most of the proposed items reached consensus, suggesting the need to make organizational changes, the structuring of careful diagnostic and therapeutic pathways, and the application of new technologies in pain medicine. Long-COVID-19 care is an issue that needs further research. Remote assistance for chronic pain must be regulated.

Objectives: Despite guidelines, a large percentage of cancer patients continue to suffer from ineffectively treated pain. The authors undertook this survey to assess the strengths and weaknesses of cancer pain management in Italy. Design: This was a prospectively administered survey. Participants: The participants were anesthesiologists of the Italian Society of Anesthesia, Analgesia, Resuscitation and Intensive Care (SIAARTI). Intervention: A 58-item questionnaire covered the demographics and features of cancer pain management in the Italian context. Results: The authors received responses from 611 pain therapists of 279 centers. Only 22% of physicians are exclusively pain therapists. Seventy-five percent are specialists in anesthesiology, intensive care, and pain medicine. Most pain centers are hospital or university facilities (78%). The strengths of cancer pain management in Italy are the careful opioid prescriptions, the use of strategies for the treatment of neuropathic pain, patient/healthcare provider partnerships, and breakthrough cancer pain management. Weaknesses to be addressed include poor adherence to guidelines, inadequate attention toward the patient’s quality of life, insufficient use of minimally invasive techniques, lack of teamwork approaches, inappropriate timing of pain specialist engagement, and poor telemedicine use. Conclusions: Despite several strengths, further efforts are needed to improve the care of patients suffering from cancer pain in Italy.

Background: Low-back pain (LBP) affects about 40% of people at some point in their lives. In the presence of “red flags”, further tests must be done to rule out underlying problems; however, biomedical imaging is currently overused. LBP involves large in-hospital and out-of-hospital economic costs, and it is also the most common musculoskeletal disorder seen in emergency departments (EDs). Patients and methods: This retrospective observational study enrolled 1,298 patients admitted to the ED, including all International Classification of Diseases 10 diagnosis codes for sciatica, lumbosciatica, and lumbago. We collected patients’ demographic data, medical history, lab workup and imaging performed at the ED, drugs administered at the ED, ED length of stay (LOS), numeric rating scale pain score, admission to ward, and ward LOS data. Thereafter, we performed a cost analysis. Results: Mean numeric rating scale scores were higher than 7/10. Home medication consisted of no drug consumption in up to 90% of patients. Oxycodone–naloxone was the strong opioid most frequently prescribed for the home. Once at the ED, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and opiates were administered to up to 72% and 42% of patients, respectively. Imaging was performed in up to 56% of patients. Mean ED LOS was 4 hours, 14 minutes. A total of 43 patients were admitted to a ward. The expense for each non-ward-admitted patient was approximately €200 in the ED, while the mean expense for ward-admitted patients was €9,500, with a mean LOS of 15 days. Conclusion: There is not yet a defined therapeutic care process for the patient with LBP with clear criteria for an ED visit. It is to this end that we need a clinical pathway for the prehospital management of LBP syndrome and consequently for an in-hospital time-saving therapeutic approach to the patient.