The increasing number of opioid users among chronic pain patients, and opioid abusers among the general population, makes perioperative pain management challenging for health care professionals. Anesthesiologists, surgeons, and nurses should be familiar with some pharmacological phenomena which are typical of opioid users and abusers, such as tolerance, physical dependence, hyperalgesia, and addiction. Inadequate pain management is very common in these patients, due to common prejudices and fears. The target of preoperative evaluation is to identify comorbidities and risk factors and recognize signs and symptoms of opioid abuse and opioid withdrawal. Clinicians are encouraged to plan perioperative pain medications and to refer these patients to psychiatrists and addiction specialists for their evaluation. The aim of this review was to give practical suggestions for perioperative management of surgical opioid-tolerant patients, together with schemes of opioid conversion for chronic pain patients assuming oral or transdermal opioids, and patients under maintenance programs with methadone, buprenorphine, or naltrexone.

The current literature describes the possible risks for bone fracture in chronic analgesics users. There are three main hypotheses that could explain the increased risk of fracture associated with central analgesics, such as opioids: 1) the increased risk of falls caused by central nervous system effects, including sedation and dizziness; 2) reduced bone mass density caused by the direct opioid effect on osteoblasts; and 3) chronic opioid-induced hypogonadism. The impact of opioids varies by sex and among the type of opioid used (less, for example, for tapentadol and buprenorphine). Opioid-associated androgen deficiency is correlated with an increased risk of osteoporosis; thus, despite that standards have not been established for monitoring and treating opioid-induced hypogonadism or hypoadrenalism, all patients chronically taking opioids (particularly at doses ≥100 mg morphine daily) should be monitored for the early detection of hormonal impairment and low bone mass density.

Many factors have contributed to rendering frailty an emerging, relevant, and very popular concept. First, many pandemics that have affected humanity in history, including COVID-19, most recently, have had more severe effects on frail people compared to non-frail ones. Second, the increase in human life expectancy observed in many developed countries, including Italy has led to a rise in the percentage of the older population that is more likely to be frail, which is why frailty is much a more common concern among geriatricians compared to other the various health-care professionals. Third, the stratification of people according to the occurrence and the degree of frailty allows healthcare decision makers to adequately plan for the allocation of available human professional and economic resources. Since frailty is considered to be fully preventable, there are relevant consequences in terms of potential benefits both in terms of the clinical outcome and healthcare costs. Frailty is becoming a popular, pervasive, and almost omnipresent concept in many different contexts, including clinical medicine, physical health, lifestyle behavior, mental health, health policy, and socio-economic planning sciences. The emergence of the new “science of frailty” has been recently acknowledged. However, there is still debate on the exact definition of frailty, the pathogenic mechanisms involved, the most appropriate method to assess frailty, and consequently, who should be considered frail. This narrative review aims to analyze frailty from many different aspects and points of view, with a special focus on the proposed pathogenic mechanisms, the various factors that have been considered in the assessment of frailty, and the emerging role of biomarkers in the early recognition of frailty, particularly on the role of mitochondria. According to the extensive literature on this topic, it is clear that frailty is a very complex syndrome, involving many different domains and affecting multiple physiological systems. Therefore, its management should be directed towards a comprehensive and multifaceted holistic approach and a personalized intervention strategy to slow down its progression or even to completely reverse the course of this condition.

Purpose: The use of opioids in patients with chronic non-cancer pain is common and can be associated with opioid-induced androgen deficiency (OPIAD) in men. This review aims to evaluate the current literature regarding the prevalence, clinical consequence and management of OPIAD. Methods: A database search was performed in Medline, Embase and Cochrane using terms such as “analgesics”, “opioids” and “testosterone”. Relevant literature from January 1969 to March 2018 was evaluated. Results: The prevalence of patients with OPIAD ranges from 19 to 86%, depending on the criteria for diagnosis of hypogonadism. The opioid-induced suppression of gonadotropin-releasing and luteinizing hormones represents the main important pathogenetic mechanisms. OPIAD has significant negative clinical consequences on sexual function, mood, bone density and body composition. In addition, OPIAD can also impair pain control leading to hyperalgesia, which can contribute to sexual dysfunction and mood impairment. Conclusions: OPIAD is a common adverse effect of opioid treatment and contributes to sexual dysfunction, impairs pain relief and reduces overall quality of life. The evaluation of serum testosterone levels should be considered in male chronic opioid users and the decision to initiate testosterone treatment should be based on the clinical profile of individuals, in consultation with the patient.

Background and Objective: Nonthyroidal Illness Syndrome (NTIS) occurs in approximately 70% of patients admitted to Intensive Care Units (ICU)s and has been associated with increased risk of death. Whether patients with NTIS should receive treatment with thyroid hormones (TH)s is still debated. Since many interventional randomized clinical trials (IRCT)s were not conclusive, current guidelines do not recommend treatment for these patients. In this review, we analyze the reasons why TH treatment did not furnish convincing results regarding possible beneficial effects in reported IRCTs.Methods: We performed a review of the metanalyses focused on NTIS in critically ill patients. After a careful selection, we extracted data from four metanalyses, performed in different clinical conditions and diseases. In particular, we analyzed the type of TH supplementation, the route of administration, the dosages and duration of treatment and the outcomes chosen to evaluate the results.Results: We observed a marked heterogeneity among the IRCTs, in terms of type of TH supplementation, route of administration, dosages and duration of treatment. We also found great variability in the primary outcomes, such as prevention of neurological alterations, reduction of oxygen requirements, restoration of endocrinological and clinical parameters and reduction of mortality.Conclusions: NTIS is a frequent finding in critical ill patients. Despite several available IRCTs, it is still unclear whether NTIS should be treated or not. New primary endpoints should be identified to adequately validate the efficacy of TH treatment and to obtain a clear answer to the question raised some years ago.

In patients suffering from moderate-to-severe chronic kidney disease (CKD) or end-stage renal disease (ESRD), subjected to hemodialysis (HD), pain is very common, but often underestimated. Opioids are still the mainstay of severe chronic pain management; however, their prescription in CKD and HD patients is still significantly low and pain is often under-treated. Altered pharmacokinetics and the lack of clinical trials on the use of opioids in patients with renal impairment increase physicians’ concerns in this specific population. This narrative review focused on the correct and safe use of opioids in patients with CKD and HD. Morphine and codeine are not recommended, because the accumulation of their metabolites may cause neurotoxic symptoms. Oxycodone and hydromorphone can be safely used, but adequate dosage adjustments are required in CKD. In dialyzed patients, these opioids should be considered as second-line agents and patients should be carefully monitored. According to different studies, buprenorphine and fentanyl could be considered first-line opioids in the management of pain in CKD; however, fentanyl is not appropriate in patients undergoing HD. Tapentadol does not need dosage adjustment in mild-to-moderate renal impairment conditions; however, no data are available on its use in ESRD. Opioid-related side effects may be exacerbated by common comorbidities in CKD patients. Opioid-induced constipation can be managed with peripherally-acting-μ-opioid-receptor-antagonists (PAMORA). Unlike the other PAMORA, naldemedine does not require any dose adjustment in CKD and HD patients. Accurate pain diagnosis, opioid titration and tailoring are mandatory to minimize the risks and to improve the outcome of the analgesic therapy.