4.4 Review

Dependence on Prescription Opioids Prevention, Diagnosis and Treatment

期刊

DEUTSCHES ARZTEBLATT INTERNATIONAL
卷 113, 期 13, 页码 213-220

出版社

DEUTSCHER AERZTE-VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.2016.0213

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The incidence of initial prescriptions of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain rose by 37% in Germany from 2000 to 2010. Prescribing practice does not always conform with the recommendations of current guidelines. In the USA, 8-12% of patients with chronic non-cancer pain are opioid-dependent. Methods: This review is based on publications retrieved by a selective PubMed search and on the German S3 guideline on the long-term use of opioids in non-cancer pain. Results: Patients must be informed and counseled about the effects and risks of opioids before these drugs are prescribed. All opioid prescriptions for patients with chronic non-cancer pain should be regularly reviewed. The risk of abuse is high in young adults (odds ratio [OR] = 6.74) and in those with a history of substance abuse (OR = 2.34). Any unusual medication-related behavior, e.g., loss of prescriptions or increasing the dose without prior discussion with the physician, calls for further assessment by the physician in conversation with the patient. Urine testing for drugs and their metabolites is helpful as well. The goal of treatment of opioid abuse is opioid abstinence by gradual reduction of the dose. If this is not possible on an outpatient basis, hospitalization for drug withdrawal or substitution-based addiction therapy can be offered. Conclusion: Physicians who know the indications and risks of opioid therapy and the typical behavior of drug-dependent patients will be better able to identify patients at risk and to prevent dependence. Studies on the prevalence of opioid abuse and dependence in German patients with chronic pain can help provide better estimates of the current extent and implications of this problem in Germany.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据