ArticleJournal of pain research2019
Evaluation of US Food and Drug Administration-recommended abuse-potential questions in chronic pain patients without history of recreational opioid use: results and plan for research.
Article in Journal of pain research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExisting patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessments that measure the human abuse potential for opioid analgesics have been tested exclusively in experienced recreational opioid users, as required by US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance.
methodsThe goals of the current studies were to modify items from FDA-recommended abuse potential PRO assessments to specify the analgesic benefits versus the euphoric effects of opioids and to ascertain the clarity, understandability, appropriateness, and validity of the modified questions. This was achieved by conducting cognitive debriefing interviews (CDIs) with patients (≥18 and <65 years) who have chronic pain, were prescribed an opioid daily dose of at least 80 morphine-equivalent milligrams (>30 days to ≤180 days from the date of interview), and did not have a history of recreational opioid use.
resultsParticipants in study 1 (n=30) and study 2 (n=7) had a better understanding of the items designed to measure the concepts of drug liking and items designed to measure the desire to take a drug again when reasons for liking and desire to take again were included in the item wording (namely, "due to pain relief " and "excluding pain relief "). Most participants indicated no interest in taking their medication for reasons other than pain relief.
conclusionModification of questions in the PRO assessment improved patient understanding of "drug liking" and "desire to take again." Patients with chronic pain who were not recreational opioid users understood the difference between the analgesic and euphoric effects of an opioid drug. The modified questions should assist future researchers in providing a more accurate assessment of the abuse potential of an opioid, as required by regulatory agencies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.