Linda LeResche1,2, Kathleen Saunders2, Sascha Dublin2, Stephen Thielke3, Joseph O Merrill4, Susan M Shortreed2, Cynthia Campbell5, Michael R Von Korff2. 1. 1 Department of Oral Medicine, University of Washington School of Dentistry , Seattle, Washington. 2. 2 Group Health Research Institute , Seattle, Washington. 3. 3 Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science, University of Washington School of Medicine , Seattle, Washington. 4. 4 Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine , Seattle, Washington. 5. 5 Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente , Oakland, California.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of chronic opioid therapy (COT) has risen dramatically in recent years, especially among women. However, little is known about factors influencing overall pain and function (global pain status) among COT users. Characterizing the typical experiences of COT patients by age-sex group could help clinicians and patients better weigh the risks and benefits of COT. Thus, we sought to characterize global pain status among COT users in community practice by age and sex. METHODS: Telephone survey of 2,163 health plan members aged 21-80 years using COT. We assessed average/usual pain (0-10 scale); pain-related interference (0-10); activity limitation days, last 3 months; and pain impact, last 2 weeks (0-11). Status on each indicator was classified as low (better pain/function), moderate, or high (worse pain/function). Global pain status was categorized as favorable if 2-4 indicators were low and 0-1 was high and unfavorable if 2-4 indicators were high and 0-1 was low. RESULTS: Among female COT patients, 15% (vs. 26% of males) had favorable global pain status and 59% (vs. 42% of males) had unfavorable status. Under age 65 years, women fared more poorly than men on every indicator. Among 65- to 80-year-olds, women and men had similar global pain status. CONCLUSIONS: Although pain and function among COT users vary considerably, only one in five reported low pain levels and high levels of function. Young and middle-aged women seem to be at particularly high risk for unfavorable global pain status. More research is needed about how to best manage pain in this group.
BACKGROUND: The use of chronic opioid therapy (COT) has risen dramatically in recent years, especially among women. However, little is known about factors influencing overall pain and function (global pain status) among COT users. Characterizing the typical experiences of COT patients by age-sex group could help clinicians and patients better weigh the risks and benefits of COT. Thus, we sought to characterize global pain status among COT users in community practice by age and sex. METHODS: Telephone survey of 2,163 health plan members aged 21-80 years using COT. We assessed average/usual pain (0-10 scale); pain-related interference (0-10); activity limitation days, last 3 months; and pain impact, last 2 weeks (0-11). Status on each indicator was classified as low (better pain/function), moderate, or high (worse pain/function). Global pain status was categorized as favorable if 2-4 indicators were low and 0-1 was high and unfavorable if 2-4 indicators were high and 0-1 was low. RESULTS: Among female COT patients, 15% (vs. 26% of males) had favorable global pain status and 59% (vs. 42% of males) had unfavorable status. Under age 65 years, women fared more poorly than men on every indicator. Among 65- to 80-year-olds, women and men had similar global pain status. CONCLUSIONS: Although pain and function among COT users vary considerably, only one in five reported low pain levels and high levels of function. Young and middle-aged women seem to be at particularly high risk for unfavorable global pain status. More research is needed about how to best manage pain in this group.
Authors: Yolanda R Smith; Christian S Stohler; Thomas E Nichols; Joshua A Bueller; Robert A Koeppe; Jon-Kar Zubieta Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2006-05-24 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Olav Magnus S Fredheim; Milada Mahic; Svetlana Skurtveit; Ola Dale; Pål Romundstad; Petter C Borchgrevink Journal: Pain Date: 2014-03-15 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: E Sarton; E Olofsen; R Romberg; J den Hartigh; B Kest; D Nieuwenhuijs; A Burm; L Teppema; A Dahan Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2000-11 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Michael Von Korff; Michael Von Korff; Kathleen Saunders; Gary Thomas Ray; Denise Boudreau; Cynthia Campbell; Joseph Merrill; Mark D Sullivan; Carolyn M Rutter; Michael J Silverberg; Caleb Banta-Green; Constance Weisner Journal: Clin J Pain Date: 2008 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 3.442
Authors: Kurt Kroenke; Tara W Strine; Robert L Spitzer; Janet B W Williams; Joyce T Berry; Ali H Mokdad Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2008-08-27 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: C Baigent; L Blackwell; J Emberson; L E Holland; C Reith; N Bhala; R Peto; E H Barnes; A Keech; J Simes; R Collins Journal: Lancet Date: 2010-11-08 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Joanne Salas; Jeffrey F Scherrer; Brian K Ahmedani; Laurel A Copeland; Kathleen K Bucholz; Mark D Sullivan; Thomas Burroughs; F David Schneider; Patrick J Lustman Journal: J Pain Date: 2017-10-10 Impact factor: 5.820
Authors: Joseph I Terranova; Zhimin Song; Tony E Larkin; Nathan Hardcastle; Alisa Norvelle; Ansa Riaz; H Elliott Albers Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2016-11-02 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Lydia S Buonomano; Matthew M Mitnick; Thomas R McCalmont; Paulina Syracuse; Karen L Dugosh; David S Festinger; Michelle R Lent Journal: Med Cannabis Cannabinoids Date: 2022-06-03
Authors: Alene Kennedy-Hendricks; Susan H Busch; Emma E McGinty; Marcus A Bachhuber; Jeff Niederdeppe; Sarah E Gollust; Daniel W Webster; David A Fiellin; Colleen L Barry Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2016-05-21 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Natalie Moryl; Vinnidhy Dave; Paul Glare; Ali Bokhari; Vivek T Malhotra; Amitabh Gulati; Joseph Hung; Vinay Puttanniah; Yvona Griffo; Roma Tickoo; Alison Wiesenthal; Susan D Horn; Charles E Inturrisi Journal: J Pain Date: 2017-11-14 Impact factor: 5.820