Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • LATEST ARTICLES
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP Open
    • BJGP Open Accessibility Statement
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Fellowships
    • Audio Abstracts
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Outreach
    • BJGP Life
    • Research into Publication Science
    • Advertising
    • Contact
    • Top 10 Research Articles of the Year
  • SPECIAL ISSUES
    • Special issue: Telehealth
    • Special issue: Race and Racism in Primary Care
    • Special issue: COVID-19 and Primary Care
    • Past research calls
  • CONFERENCE
  • RCGP
    • British Journal of General Practice
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers

User menu

  • Alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
BJGP Open
  • RCGP
    • British Journal of General Practice
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
BJGP Open
Intended for Healthcare Professionals

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • LATEST ARTICLES
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP Open
    • BJGP Open Accessibility Statement
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Fellowships
    • Audio Abstracts
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Outreach
    • BJGP Life
    • Research into Publication Science
    • Advertising
    • Contact
    • Top 10 Research Articles of the Year
  • SPECIAL ISSUES
    • Special issue: Telehealth
    • Special issue: Race and Racism in Primary Care
    • Special issue: COVID-19 and Primary Care
    • Past research calls
  • CONFERENCE
Research

Long-term, high-dose opioid prescription for chronic non-cancer pain in primary care: an observational study

John Bailey, Simon Gill and Rob Poole
BJGP Open 2022; 6 (4): BJGPO.2021.0217. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGPO.2021.0217
John Bailey
1 Centre for Mental Health and Society, Bangor University Wrexham Academic Unit, Technology Park Wrexham, Wrexham, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for John Bailey
  • For correspondence: j.bailey@bangor.ac.uk
Simon Gill
2 Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, North Wales, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Simon Gill
Rob Poole
3 Centre for Mental Health and Society, Bangor University, Bangor, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background Opioid prescriptions for chronic pain have risen sharply over the last 25 years; harms associated with these drugs are related to dose and length of use.

Aim The main aim of this study was to identify patients prescribed long-term, high-dose (LTHD) opioids in the community and to assess the prevalence of such use.

Design & setting An observational study of opioid prescribing in two demographically dissimilar GP practices in North Wales, UK.

Method Details of opioid prescriptions were collected for 22 841 patients, of whom 1488 (6.5%) were being prescribed opioids on the census date. Exhaustive examination of the data identified all patients who were prescribed oral morphine equivalent doses of ≥120 mg/day for ≥1 year.

Results All these patients were being prescribed ≥120 mg/day, as a single drug, morphine, oxycodone, fentanyl, or buprenorphine, irrespective of opioid polypharmacy. Across both practices, 1.71/1000 patients were identified as LTHD users of opioid medication for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP). Prevalence was similar in the two practices. Repetition of the process until January 2021 showed no change in the pattern.

Conclusion This study offers confirmation that a significant group of patients are prescribed long-term opioid medication for chronic pain at doses that are unlikely to be effective in reducing pain, but are likely to have harmful consequences. The findings offer a simple, reliable, and practical method of data extraction to identify these patients individually from routinely collected prescribing data, which will help in monitoring and treating individuals and establishing the problem prevalence.

  • Opioid analgesics
  • Chronic pain
  • Drug prescriptions
  • Primary care
  • Oxycodone
  • Morphine

How this fits in

While there is much concern about the increasing prescribing of opioid medication in recent years, little is known about those patients prescribed high doses in the long term. A detailed examination of prescribing for CNCP at the individual patient level informed the development of a simple method for identifying those prescribed sustained high doses. This allows for the identification for monitoring and intervention of those patients most likely to be at risk of harm resulting from opioid doses that are likely to be ineffective in reducing pain.

Introduction

UK opioid prescribing has increased substantially since 1990,1,2 with similar changes internationally,3 especially in North America.4–6 There is widespread concern in the UK related to severe problems in the USA,7–10 where there has been an epidemic of opioid use and resulting harm arising, in part, from the indiscriminate prescribing and diversion of pain medication. There is little evidence for problems of the scale and severity experienced in the USA occurring outside North America. Most opioid prescribing in the UK is for CNCP11–13 despite a lack of evidence of effectiveness14–19 and the risk of direct and indirect harms.15,17,19–26 Epidemiological evidence shows that opioids for CNCP are associated with worse functioning and quality of life,27–30 and the authors' clinical experience suggests this is particularly true with high doses.

An emerging consensus suggests that opioid treatment for chronic pain should be approached with care rather than with unbridled enthusiasm.31 However, the field must now cope with the consequences of past over-enthusiasm. It is important to find practical ways to identify patients in primary care on LTHD regimens.

Studies of opioid prescribing in the UK are summarised in Table 1. Overall prescribing may have decreased but rates remain much higher than they were 25 years ago.2,11,32 In contrast to the decrease in overall prescribing, the prescribing of stronger drugs has increased,2,11,33,34 as has the number of people prescribed long-term opioids.32,35 These studies illustrate persistent concerns about use of opioid medication in the UK population. However, to properly understand and then address the problem, individual-level information is needed. Aggregated population-level statistics showing 100 prescriptions issued cannot distinguish between 100 people with one prescription each, 10 people with 10 prescriptions each, or one person with 100 prescriptions, and each of these indicates a different clinical situation. There is also a need for a method to identify individual patients on these regimens within practice populations to facilitate evaluation and intervention.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1. UK studies of opioid prescribing in primary care

The aim of this study was to develop a practical method to identify all patients on LTHD opioid regimens within primary care and to describe patterns of opioid prescribing in two practice populations.

Method

The criteria for LTHD opioid prescribing were 1) daily oral morphine equivalent (ME) dose of 120 mg or more;36,37 2) prescribed continuously for more than 1 year; and 3) patients with cancer were excluded. The Royal College of Anaesthetists38 indicates that ‘the risk of harm increases substantially at doses above an oral ME of 120mg/day, but there is no increased benefit‘ and the British Pain Society39 has recommended that patients with CNCP being prescribed opioids at this doses or above should be referred to specialist pain services. A one-year minimum prescribing duration was chosen as it is unequivocally long-term use.

A point prevalence study was carried out in two GP practices in North Wales. Practice A was a large, fully medically staffed practice in a market town with national average levels of social deprivation, as indicated by the Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation.40 It was not identified, either internally or externally, as an outlier regarding opioid prescribing, lying below the mean for the Local Health Board (LHB).

During data collection in practice A, the authors were asked to provide support on opioid prescribing to a second GP practice, practice B, in an ex-mining community with higher Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation40 levels of social deprivation. It was entirely staffed by locum GPs and administered by the LHB. Opioid prescribing was close to the LHB mean.

Data were extracted from the practices’ computerised records for all prescriptions of opioid analgesic medication, including compound drugs (see Box 1 for details), dated between 1 October 2016 and 31 January 2017 (practice A), and 17 January and 15 May 2017 (practice B). The data included: age and sex; date of prescription; drug name, strength, and dose direction; and quantity prescribed. The weeks beginning Monday 9 January 2017 (practice A), and Monday 24 April 2017 (practice B), were selected as the index week and all prescriptions issued in that week or for use in that week were identified. PRN (as required) prescriptions dated in the month preceding the index week and/or records indicated continuing use, were included. An estimate of daily dose was made. For PRN prescriptions, this was calculated by dividing the total quantity of drug prescribed by the number of days between the two prescriptions nearest the index week. This method was also used where there was a clear difference between the use calculated and the amount specified in the dose direction; otherwise the dose as directed was used. Oral ME doses were calculated using conversion tables from Palliative Care Guidelines Plus;41 total 24-hour doses were calculated for individual drugs and for all opioids issued.

Box 1

Searching practice records for prescriptions for opioid medication .

The two GP practices studied in this research used different database systems (Vision and EMIS) to record practice information. Different search terms were enabled in these systems to access information about drug prescriptions.

In the Vision system, the search terms were:

  • Drug Class of type Opioid Analgesics, and

  • Drug Class of type Non-opioid and Compound Analgesics.

In the EMIS system, the search terms were:

  • The Drug is Opioid Analgesics, and

  • The Drug is Compound Analgesic Preparations.

These searches produced slightly differing results, but included, in both cases, all prescriptions for drugs listed by BNF [British National Formulary] as opioid analgesics, in the relevant time period. Therefore, there were false positive results but no false negatives.

It was assumed that there were likely to be three ways in which total ME dose might exceed 120 mg/day:

  1. as a high dose of a single drug;

  2. as a relatively high dose of one drug with a dose of a second drug;

  3. as lower doses of several opioid drugs in combination.

Three sets of criteria were applied sequentially to the collected data to identify three (non-mutually exclusive) patient groups:

  1. those prescribed a daily dose of a single drug ≥120 mg ME;

  2. those prescribed a daily dose of a single drug between 60 mg ME and 119 mg ME and other opioid(s);

  3. those prescribed three or more different opioids. (This iteration identified very few cases not found in A or B, none of which had doses approaching 120 mg ME. It was subsequently discontinued.)

All patients prescribed LTHD opioids were identified. Those with a cancer diagnosis were excluded. Comparison data on these patients for the corresponding period a year earlier were collected.

In practice A, additional data were collected from review of patient records for those prescribed LTHD opioids: indication for use of opioid; non-opioid analgesic or adjuvant medications; referral history to secondary care pain services; and longitudinal opioid prescription histories.

The LHB policy is that opioid replacement for substance misuse must be prescribed by specialist services, not GPs; no opioid prescriptions for substance misuse were identified.

When the data had been collated, the findings were presented to a meeting of practice A's staff. Prescribers’ comments were elicited and recorded. This was not possible in practice B due to discontinuity of medical staffing.

The exercise was repeated yearly in practice A in the corresponding week from 2018–2021. One repeat audit was conducted in practice B in October 2020.

Service users from PÂR-NCMH42 were consulted during the planning of this research.

Results

Table 2 summarises opioid prescribing data from the two primary care practices. In both practices, all patients identified as having been prescribed LTHD opioids reached the threshold dose through prescription of a single drug at ≥120 mg ME. No patient crossed the dose threshold only when doses of different opioids were aggregated.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2. Opioid prescribing in Practice A and Practice B in the index week 2017

Combining figures from the two practices showed a LTHD opioid prevalence of 1.71 per 1000 patients (practice A: 1.74 per 1000; practice B: 1.65 per 1000)

All the patients on LTHD opioids were prescribed morphine, oxycodone, or fentanyl transdermal patches. In practice A:

  • eight on morphine (highest daily ME 619 mg),

  • six on oxycodone (highest daily ME 480 mg),

  • eleven on fentanyl (highest daily ME 540 mg).

Fourteen out of 25 also had PRN opioid prescriptions. When PRN was added, the highest daily ME was 778 mg.

In practice B:

  • four on morphine (highest daily ME 480 mg),

  • five on oxycodone (highest daily ME 320 mg),

  • five on fentanyl (highest daily ME 540 mg),

Three out of 14 patients also had PRN opioid prescriptions.

Table 3 summarises high dose opioid prescribing in practice A between 2017 and 2021. LTHD opioid rates increased from 1.74 per 1000 patients to 1.92 per 1000 patients during this period. In practice B, this rate decreased from 1.65 per 1000 patients to 1.26 per 1000 patients in 2020. Supplementary Table S1 shows that once high doses were reached they tended to be maintained, and that in January 2021 there were a small number of LTHD buprenorphine prescriptions (n = 3; 6% of all the patients prescribed LTHD opioids from Practice A).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3. Longitudinal high-dose prescribing data from Practice A

In practice A, the age of patients prescribed LTHD opioids ranged from 32 to 88 years (mean 61.1, median 58); 15 (60%) were female. In practice B, ages ranged from 30 to 80 years (mean 51.7, median 44.5); five (36%) were female. Table 4 gives detailed age distributions.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 4. Age profile of patients prescribed LTHD opioids in the two practices in the index week 2017

Practice A data showed indications for opioids: musculoskeletal pain in n = 21/25 and chronic abdominal pain in n = 4/25. In Practice A, n =9/25 had never been referred, at any point, to secondary care pain services and n = 19/25 were prescribed non-opioid analgesics or adjuvant medications:

  • amitriptyline n = 7,

  • other antidepressants n = 11 (2 antidepressants in two instances),

  • benzodiazepines n = 4,

  • hypnotics n = 1,

  • gabapentinoids n = 7 (1 patient with a diagnosis of epilepsy),

  • non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs n = 4,

  • ketamine n = 1.

It was possible to determine the duration of continuous opioid use for n = 23/25 patients (the other two patients were on high-dose opioids on registration with the practice). Regular non-compound opioids were initiated 42–240 months before the index week (median 126). Initiation of doses ≥120mg ME was 13–198 months before the index week (median 106).

Findings from the first year’s data were presented to a group of GPs and other staff at Practice A . They expressed surprise at the number of patients prescribed LTHD opioids, having expected there to be few or none. The consensus was that patients experience adverse drug effects at doses below 120 mg ME per day, and that a lower dose-threshold might be more appropriate. Problems with adjuvant medications were raised. Conversations about opioids were described as difficult for prescribers and patients, sometimes leading to conflict. Refusal to increase dose or strength and raising cessation or reduction of opioids were difficult topics. There was a perceived lack of alternatives. Prescribers did not feel they had full control of opioid prescribing. The GPs were asked if there were any patients prescribed LTHD opioids who experienced satisfactory levels of pain relief without negative effects; none could be identified.

Discussion

Summary

This study's findings show that LTHD opioid use for CNCP can be identified in primary care records by searching for prescriptions of morphine, fentanyl, oxycodone, or buprenorphine at or above 120 mg ME per day and examining prescriptions 1 year previously. This method (see Box 2) is less laborious than that used in previous UK studies.

Box 2

Procedure for identifying patients prescribed LTHD opioids from routinely collected prescription data.

  1. Identify all patients prescribed morphine, oxycodone, fentanyl, or buprenorphine.

  2. From 1, identify all patients prescribed one of these drugs at ≥120 mg ME daily dose.

  3. From 2, identify patients prescribed these drugs and these doses 1 year previously.

As indicated in Table 2, examination of opioid prescribing data for practices A and B identified all patients prescribed LTHD opioids. A rate of 1.71 per 1000 patients was calculated for the practices combined. Unadjusted extrapolation would suggest that there might be over 100 000 patients prescribed LTHD opioid medication in the UK, but this figure is not epidemiologically reliable; it is a crude estimate. These patients are at risk of harm and functional impairments with very limited pain relief.

This study's criteria were conservative: most of the literature accepts 120 mg ME as the threshold for limited analgesic benefit and high risk of harm.38 A one-year duration was chosen pragmatically. It is likely that some patients experience negative effects at lower doses and shorter durations. Table 2 sets out data for high doses for less than 1 year and daily doses between 60 and 120 mgME.

This study shows that some patients follow LTHD regimens for many years. No judgements about drug effectiveness can be made from this study's findings, but there is a real possibility that harms outweigh benefits for these patients.

This study found frequent use of adjunctive pain medications alongside high dose opioids. Many of these have sedative effects that compound the effects of opioids.

The feedback meeting with practice A's medical staff suggested that LTHD prescribing can arise without the prescriber intending it, confirming uncertainty over the locus of control. The discussion confirmed previous findings regarding difficult doctor–patient interactions about opioids.43,44 The prescribers were unable to identify any patients prescribed LTHD opioids who experienced good pain relief and no adverse effects on functioning.

Strengths and limitations

This study’s main limitation was sample size. Small-scale studies are susceptible to sampling error, and the findings should not be over-interpreted. This study has presented purely descriptive findings. Set against this, the size of the study allowed collection and analysis of detailed data on an individual patient level with direct counts of cases rather than estimates from a sample of the population of interest. This is a necessary step in developing practical methods to generate large individual level datasets and to identify individual patients for medication review. Replication in other locations with different demographics would be helpful. The authors are particular aware of the lack of ethnic diversity in the area studied; 97.8% White in North Wales in 2015-2017.45 These findings are indicative, but a larger study is necessary for fully generalisable findings. The method outlined in this study will facilitate larger scale studies of LTHD opioid use.

Comparison with existing literature

Two previous studies sought to identify patients prescribed high-dose opioids for CNCP.36,37 Their methods did not measure duration, and made extensive demands on clinical and administrative staff time. This study's method was less laborious and captures the group of greatest concern.

Rates of LTHD prescribing in practice A are consistent with other evidence on potent, high-dose and long-term opioid prescribing.2,11,32,34,35 Increasing levels of such prescribing in practice A suggest that prescriber awareness of LTHD opioids because of this study was insufficient to alter prescribing. Decreased LTHD prescribing in practice B may be a result of pharmacist prescribing support provided in the absence of permanent medical staff.

The number of patients prescribed opioids, sex ratio, and average age in practice A are similar to a recent primary care study.35 The results for practice B are different. Research has shown that higher overall rates of opioid prescribing are associated with older-age patients.11,13,35 Table 4 shows higher rates in people over 75 years, though the absolute number is evenly spread across those aged over 40 years.

Research has shown higher levels of opioid prescribing in deprived areas.2,11,32,34,35,46 Accordingly, rates of overall opioid prescribing were higher in the more socially deprived practice B. However, rates of LTHD opioid prescribing were similar in both practices. The prevalence finding in this study was higher than in previous studies. This may reflect differences in method, geographical differences, change in prevalence over time, or all three. However, it does not suggest a recent reduction in high-dose opioid prescribing. It underlines the need for evidence-based interventions to reduce high-dose prescribing.

Implications for research and practice

This study's method is practical and reliably identifies patients prescribed LTHD opioids in UK primary care. It has utility in auditing such regimens and in identifying at-risk patients. It has potential to unpick the fine grain epidemiology of the problem.

The findings indicate factors that should be explored in future studies: social deprivation, age, duration of high-doses regimens, indications for opioids, adjunctive medications, and better prescribing strategies. Such studies will be important in the development of better pain management strategies in primary care (see47).

Notes

Funding

There was no external funding for this research.

Ethical approval

The research was registered as audit of routinely collected anonymised data by the LHB R&D department. It did not require NHS or University ethical approval. Bangor University CBLESS Research Ethics Committee gave approval for the collection of staff meeting data. All staff gave prior informed consent.

Provenance

Freely submitted; externally peer reviewed.

Data

The dataset relied on in this article is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Competing interests

The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Disclosure

The authors report no competing interests for this research.

  • Received November 12, 2021.
  • Revision received May 23, 2022.
  • Accepted June 16, 2022.
  • Copyright © 2022, The Authors

This article is Open Access: CC BY license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse
    (2011) Addiction to medicine. accessed. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120502165324/http://www.nta.nhs.uk/uploads/addictiontomedicinesmay2011a.pdf. 25 Jun 2022.
  2. 2.↵
    1. Curtis HJ,
    2. Croker R,
    3. Walker AJ,
    4. et al.
    (2019) Opioid prescribing trends and geographical variation in england, 1998-2018: a retrospective database study. Lancet Psychiatry 6 (2):140–150, doi:10.1016/S2215-0366(18)30471-1, pmid:30580987.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Berterame S,
    2. Erthal J,
    3. Thomas J,
    4. et al.
    (2016) Use of and barriers to access to opioid analgesics: a worldwide, regional, and national study. Lancet 387 (10028):1644–1656, doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00161-6, pmid:26852264.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Okie S
    (2010) A flood of opioids, a rising tide of deaths. N Engl J Med 363 (21):1981–1985, doi:10.1056/NEJMp1011512, pmid:21083382.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.
    1. Manchikanti L,
    2. Helm 2nd S,
    3. Fellows B,
    4. et al.
    (2012) Opioid epidemic in the United States. Pain Physician 15 (3 Suppl):ES9–ES38, doi:10.36076/ppj.2012/15/ES9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Fischer B,
    2. Jones W,
    3. Vojtila L,
    4. Kurdyak P
    (2018) Patterns, changes, and trends in prescription opioid dispensing in Canada, 2005-2016. Pain Physician 21 (3):219–228, doi:10.36076/ppj.2018.3.219.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Dhalla IA,
    2. Persaud N,
    3. Juurlink DN
    (2011) Facing up to the prescription opioid crisis. BMJ 343 doi:10.1136/bmj.d5142, pmid:21862533. d5142.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  8. 8.
    1. Stannard C
    (2013) Opioids in the UK: what’s the problem? BMJ 347 doi:10.1136/bmj.f5108, pmid:23950198. f5108.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  9. 9.
    1. Kotecha MK,
    2. Sites BD
    (2013) Pain policy and abuse of prescription opioids in the USA: a cautionary tale for Europe. Anaesthesia 68 (12):1210–1215, doi:10.1111/anae.12450, pmid:24219249.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Weisberg DF,
    2. Becker WC,
    3. Fiellin DA,
    4. Stannard C
    (2014) Prescription opioid misuse in the United States and the United Kingdom: cautionary lessons. Int J Drug Policy 25 (6):1124–1130, doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2014.07.009, pmid:25190034.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Davies E,
    2. Phillips C,
    3. Rance J,
    4. Sewell B
    (2019) Examining patterns in opioid prescribing for non-cancer-related pain in Wales: preliminary data from a retrospective cross-sectional study using large datasets. Br J Pain 13 (3):145–158, doi:10.1177/2049463718800737, pmid:31308940.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.
    1. Health and Social Care Information Centre
    (2013) Prescriptions dispensed in the community: England 2002-2012. accessed. https://files.digital.nhs.uk/publicationimport/pub11xxx/pub11291/pres-disp-com-eng-2002-12-rep.pdf. 25 Jun 2022.
  13. 13.↵
    1. Zin CS,
    2. Chen LC,
    3. Knaggs RD
    (2014) Changes in trends and pattern of strong opioid prescribing in primary care. Eur J Pain 18 (9):1343–1351, doi:10.1002/j.1532-2149.2014.496.x, pmid:24756859.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Noble M,
    2. Treadwell JR,
    3. Tregear SJ,
    4. et al.
    (2010) Long-term opioid management for chronic noncancer pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010 (1), doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006605.pub2, pmid:20091598. CD006605.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Manchikanti L,
    2. Vallejo R,
    3. Manchikanti KN,
    4. et al.
    (2011) Effectiveness of long-term opioid therapy for chronic non-cancer pain. Pain Physician 14 (2):E133–E156, doi:10.36076/ppj.2011/14/E133.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.
    1. Chan BKB,
    2. Tam LK,
    3. Wat CY,
    4. et al.
    (2011) Opioids in chronic non-cancer pain. Expert Opin Pharmacother 12 (5):705–720, doi:10.1517/14656566.2011.536335, pmid:21254859.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Chou R,
    2. Turner JA,
    3. Devine EB,
    4. et al.
    (2015) The effectiveness and risks of long-term opioid therapy for chronic pain: a systematic review for a National Institutes of Health Pathways to Prevention Workshop. Ann Intern Med 162 (4):276–286, doi:10.7326/M14-2559, pmid:25581257.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.
    1. Els C,
    2. Jackson TD,
    3. Hagtvedt R,
    4. et al.
    (2017) High-dose opioids for chronic non-cancer pain: an overview of Cochrane Reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 10 (10), doi:10.1002/14651858.CD012299.pub2, pmid:29084358. CD012299.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Chou R,
    2. Hartung D,
    3. Turner J,
    4. et al.
    (2022) Opioid Treatments for Chronic Pain. Systematic Review (Effective Health Care Program, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD). https://doi.org/10.23970/AHRQEPCCER229.
  20. 20.
    1. Benyamin R,
    2. Trescot AM,
    3. Datta S,
    4. et al.
    (2008) Opioid complications and side effects. Pain Physician 11 (2 Suppl):S105–S120, doi:10.36076/ppj.2008/11/S105.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.
    1. Labianca R,
    2. Sarzi-Puttini P,
    3. Zuccaro SM,
    4. et al.
    (2012) Adverse effects associated with non-opioid and opioid treatment in patients with chronic pain. Clin Drug Investig 32 Suppl 1 53–63, doi:10.2165/11630080-000000000-00000, pmid:23389876.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.
    1. Els C,
    2. Jackson TD,
    3. Kunyk D,
    4. et al.
    (2017) Adverse events associated with medium- and long-term use of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain: an overview of cochrane reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 10 (10), doi:10.1002/14651858.CD012509.pub2, pmid:29084357. CD012509.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.
    1. Lee M,
    2. Silverman SM,
    3. Hansen H,
    4. et al.
    (2011) A comprehensive review of opioid-induced hyperalgesia. Pain Physician 14 (2):145–161, pmid:21412369.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  24. 24.
    1. Brush DE
    (2012) Complications of long-term opioid therapy for management of chronic pain: the paradox of opioid-induced hyperalgesia. J Med Toxicol 8 (4):387–392, doi:10.1007/s13181-012-0260-0, pmid:22983894.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.
    1. Vowles KE,
    2. McEntee ML,
    3. Julnes PS,
    4. et al.
    (2015) Rates of opioid misuse, abuse, and addiction in chronic pain: a systematic review and data synthesis. Pain 156 (4):569–576, doi:10.1097/01.j.pain.0000460357.01998.f1, pmid:25785523.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Bedson J,
    2. Chen Y,
    3. Ashworth J,
    4. et al.
    (2019) Risk of adverse events in patients prescribed long-term opioids: a cohort study in the UK clinical practice research datalink. Eur J Pain 23 (5):908–922, doi:10.1002/ejp.1357, pmid:30620116.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Eriksen J,
    2. Sjøgren P,
    3. Bruera E,
    4. et al.
    (2006) Critical issues on opioids in chronic non-cancer pain: an epidemiological study. Pain 125 (1–2):172–179, doi:10.1016/j.pain.2006.06.009, pmid:16842922.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.
    1. Jensen MK,
    2. Thomsen AB,
    3. Højsted J
    (2006) 10-year follow-up of chronic non-malignant pain patients: opioid use, health related quality of life and health care utilization. Eur J Pain 10 (5):423–433, doi:10.1016/j.ejpain.2005.06.001, pmid:16054407.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.
    1. Sjøgren P,
    2. Grønbæk M,
    3. Peuckmann V,
    4. Ekholm O
    (2010) A population-based cohort study on chronic pain: the role of opioids. Clin J Pain 26 (9):763–769, doi:10.1097/AJP.0b013e3181f15daf, pmid:20842015.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Birke H,
    2. Ekholm O,
    3. Sjøgren P,
    4. et al.
    (2017) Long-term opioid therapy in Denmark: a disappointing journey. Eur J Pain 21 (9):1516–1527, doi:10.1002/ejp.1053, pmid:28481052.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Stannard C
    (2018) Where now for opioids in chronic pain? Drug Ther Bull 56 (10):118–122, doi:10.1136/dtb.2018.10.000007, pmid:30254063.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  32. 32.↵
    1. Taylor S,
    2. Annand F,
    3. Burkinshaw P,
    4. et al.
    (2019) Dependence and withdrawal associated with some prescribed medicines: an evidence review. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/940255/PHE_PMR_report_Dec2020.pdf.
  33. 33.↵
    1. Foy R,
    2. Leaman B,
    3. McCrorie C,
    4. et al.
    (2016) Prescribed opioids in primary care: cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses of influence of patient and practice characteristics. BMJ Open 6 (5), doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010276, pmid:27178970. e010276.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. 34.↵
    1. Mordecai L,
    2. Reynolds C,
    3. Donaldson LJ,
    4. de C Williams AC,
    5. et al.
    (2018) Patterns of regional variation of opioid prescribing in primary care in England: a retrospective observational study. Br J Gen Pract 68 (668):e225–e233, doi:10.3399/bjgp18X695057, pmid:29440012.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. 35.↵
    1. Cartagena Farias J,
    2. Porter L,
    3. McManus S,
    4. et al.
    (2017) Prescribing patterns in dependence forming medicines. https://www.phrc.online/assets/uploads/files/PHRC_014_Final_Report_1.pdf.
  36. 36.↵
    1. Ponton R,
    2. Sawyer R
    (2018) Opioid prescribing in general practice: use of a two-stage review tool to identify and assess high-dose prescribing. Br J Pain 12 (3):171–182, doi:10.1177/2049463717742420, pmid:30057762.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    1. Bastable R,
    2. Rann S
    (2019) Opioids aware: a general practice audit of high-dose opioid prescribing NHS England Midlands and East. BJGP Open 3 (2), doi:10.3399/bjgpopen18X101642, pmid:31366673. bjgpopen18X101642.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  38. 38.↵
    1. RCoA, Faculty of Pain Medicine
    (2022) Opioids aware: a resource for patients and healthcare professionals to support opioid prescribing for pain. https://www.fpm.ac.uk/opioids-aware.
  39. 39.↵
    1. British Pain Society
    (2012) Opioids for persistent pain: summary of guidance on good practice from the british pain society. Br J Pain 6 (1):9–10, doi:10.1177/2049463712436536.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    1. Welsh Government
    (2015) Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation (full Index update with ranks): 2014. accessed. https://gov.wales/welsh-index-multiple-deprivation-full-index-update-ranks-2014. 26 Jun 2022.
  41. 41.↵
    1. Palliative Care Guidelines Plus
    (2011) Opioid dose converter. accessed. http://book.pallcare.info/index.php?op=plugin&src=opiconv. 26 Jun 2022.
  42. 42.↵
    1. PÂR-NCMH
    (2020) Partnerships in research (PÂR). accessed. https://www.ncmh.info/help-with-research/par/. 26 Jun 2022.
  43. 43.↵
    1. Hughes HK,
    2. Korthuis PT,
    3. Saha S,
    4. et al.
    (2015) A mixed methods study of patient-provider communication about opioid analgesics. Patient Educ Couns 98 (4):453–461, doi:10.1016/j.pec.2014.12.003, pmid:25601279.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. 44.↵
    1. McCrorie C,
    2. Closs SJ,
    3. House A,
    4. et al.
    (2015) Understanding long-term opioid prescribing for non-cancer pain in primary care: a qualitative study. BMC Fam Pract 16 121, doi:10.1186/s12875-015-0335-5, pmid:26362559.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. 45.↵
    (2019) Equality and diversity statistics 2015 to 2017. accessed. https://gov.wales/equality-and-diversity-statistics-2015-2017. 22 Aug 2022.
  46. 46.↵
    1. Ruscitto A,
    2. Smith BH,
    3. Guthrie B
    (2015) Changes in opioid and other analgesic use 1995-2010: repeated cross-sectional analysis of dispensed prescribing for a large geographical population in Scotland. Eur J Pain 19 (1):59–66, doi:10.1002/ejp.520, pmid:24807782.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. 47.↵
    1. Bailey J,
    2. Nafees S,
    3. Jones L,
    4. Poole R
    (2021) Rationalisation of long-term high-dose opioids for chronic pain: development of an intervention and conceptual framework. Br J Pain 15 (3):326–334, doi:10.1177/2049463720958731, pmid:34381614.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. 48.
    1. Bedson J,
    2. Chen Y,
    3. Hayward RA,
    4. et al.
    (2016) Trends in long-term opioid prescribing in primary care patients with musculoskeletal conditions: an observational database study. Pain 157 (7):1525–1531, doi:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000557, pmid:27003191.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. 49.
    1. Green DJ,
    2. Bedson J,
    3. Blagojevic-Burwell M,
    4. et al.
    (2013) Factors associated with primary care prescription of opioids for joint pain. Eur J Pain 17 (2):234–244, doi:10.1002/j.1532-2149.2012.00185.x, pmid:22718522.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. 50.
    1. Jani M,
    2. Yimer BB,
    3. Sheppard T,
    4. et al.
    (2020) Time trends and prescribing patterns of opioid drugs in UK primary care patients with non-cancer pain: a retrospective cohort study. PLoS Med 17 (10), doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1003270, pmid:33057368. e1003270.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. 51.
    1. Ashaye T,
    2. Hounsome N,
    3. Carnes D,
    4. et al.
    (2018) Opioid prescribing for chronic musculoskeletal pain in UK primary care: results from a cohort analysis of the COPERS trial. BMJ Open 8 (6), doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019491, pmid:29880563. e019491.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

BJGP Open
Vol. 6, Issue 4
December 2022
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for recommending BJGP Open.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Long-term, high-dose opioid prescription for chronic non-cancer pain in primary care: an observational study
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from BJGP Open
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from BJGP Open.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Long-term, high-dose opioid prescription for chronic non-cancer pain in primary care: an observational study
John Bailey, Simon Gill, Rob Poole
BJGP Open 2022; 6 (4): BJGPO.2021.0217. DOI: 10.3399/BJGPO.2021.0217

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Long-term, high-dose opioid prescription for chronic non-cancer pain in primary care: an observational study
John Bailey, Simon Gill, Rob Poole
BJGP Open 2022; 6 (4): BJGPO.2021.0217. DOI: 10.3399/BJGPO.2021.0217
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • Abstract
    • How this fits in
    • Introduction
    • Method
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Notes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • Opioid analgesics
  • Chronic pain
  • Drug prescriptions
  • primary care
  • Oxycodone
  • Morphine

More in this TOC Section

  • Translating primary care to telehealth: analysis of in-person consultations on diabetes and cardiovascular disease
  • Primary care physicians’ perceptions of social determinants of health recommendations: a qualitative study
  • Ethnic minority GP trainees at risk for underperformance assessments: a quantitative cohort study
Show more Research

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

@BJGPOpen's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Latest articles
  • Authors & reviewers
  • Accessibility statement

RCGP

  • British Journal of General Practice
  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP Open
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP Open: research
  • Writing for BJGP Open: practice & policy
  • BJGP Open editorial process & policies
  • BJGP Open ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP Open

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Open access licence

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Open Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7400
Email: bjgpopen@rcgp.org.uk

BJGP Open is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners

© 2023 BJGP Open

Online ISSN: 2398-3795