Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Members & Subscribers
    • Benefits for CMA Members
    • CPD Credits for Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription Prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Members & Subscribers
    • Benefits for CMA Members
    • CPD Credits for Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription Prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Letters

The authors respond to “The 2017 Canadian opioid guideline: already time for an overhaul”

Jason W. Busse, David Juurlink, D. Norman Buckley and Gordon H. Guyatt
CMAJ March 12, 2018 190 (10) E301; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.68675
Jason W. Busse
Associate professor, Michael G. DeGroote Institute for Pain Research and Care, Departments of Anesthesia, and Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David Juurlink
Professor, Departments of Medicine and Paediatrics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
D. Norman Buckley
Professor and chair, Michael G. DeGroote Institute for Pain Research and Care, Department of Anesthesia, Hamilton, Ont.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gordon H. Guyatt
Distinguished professor, Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, Michael G. DeGroote Institute for Pain Research and Care, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

We were disappointed to receive the letter by Kahan and colleagues,1 which suggests the authors did not read our guideline carefully.

We share their concerns regarding inappropriate opioid tapering. We have highlighted this concern as it relates to overly aggressive adoption of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Noncancer Pain.2,3 The 2017 Canadian guideline for opioid therapy and chronic noncancer pain4 explicitly discourages inappropriate opioid tapering, a position that was informed by our guideline’s values and preferences statement, which reads, in part:

“… our focus group interviews revealed that some patients using long term opioid therapy for chronic non-cancer pain were concerned about adverse consequences of opioid withdrawal that may result from efforts to wean or discontinue their opioid use. For those using high doses of opioids in whom weaning is undertaken, we continue to place a high value on societal considerations of minimizing the risk of rare serious adverse events, but we also place a high value on avoiding severe suffering, increased pain, and functional limitation that may accompany opioid reduction. We also place a high value on patient autonomy under these circumstances.”5

The 2017 Canadian guideline’s Recommendation 9 is that patients using high doses of opioids (≥ 90 mg morphine equivalents dose/day) should try to decrease their dose.4 There are risks associated with this, including opioid withdrawal. Moreover, as the authors of the letter note, the evidence supporting benefits of reducing opioid dose — decreased risk of unintentional overdose, and improved function — comes from low-quality observational studies. It is thus reasonable for one patient, informed by their physician of the benefits and risks and the associated uncertainty, to choose to try lowering their dose. Another might choose to leave well enough alone. Recognizing this as a decision that is sensitive to values and preferences, the guideline made a weak recommendation for reducing opioid dose.

A weak recommendation indicates that most informed patients would choose the suggested course of action, but an appreciable minority would not. With weak recommendations, clinicians should recognize that different choices will be appropriate for individual patients, and should assist patients to arrive at a decision consistent with their values and preferences. Weak recommendations should not be used as a basis for standards of practice, other than to mandate shared decision-making.

Further, the explanatory information associated with Recommendation 9 reads as follows: “Some patients may have a substantial increase in pain or decrease in function that persists for more than one month after a small dose reduction; tapering may be paused and potentially abandoned in such patients.”4

Kahan and colleagues1 also note that our guideline does not address treatment of opioid use disorder. We highlighted this in the Scope section of the guideline.4 Although this is an important issue, it was not within our mandate. The same is true of acute pain, pain resulting from cancer, or pain at the end of life.

We reiterate our view that, if followed, the 2017 Canadian guideline will promote evidence-based prescribing of opioids for chronic noncancer pain.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: All authors are members of the Steering Committee for the Canadian Guideline for Opioid Therapy and Chronic Noncancer Pain. David Juurlink was a member of the Stakeholder Review Group for the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain. No other competing interests were declared.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Kahan M,
    2. Dubin R,
    3. Clarke H
    . The 2017 Canadian opioid guideline: already time for an overhaul [letter]. CMAJ 2018 March 12;190:E300. doi:10.1503/cmaj.68662
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Busse JW,
    2. Juurlink D,
    3. Guyatt GH
    . Addressing the limitations of the CDC guideline for prescribing opioids for chronic noncancer pain. CMAJ 2016; 188:1210–1.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Busse JW,
    2. Juurlink D,
    3. Guyatt GH
    . Response to “Clarification from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC on commentary about limitations of the CDC guideline for prescribing opioids” CMAJ 2017;189:E509.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Busse JW,
    2. Craigie S,
    3. Juurlink DN,
    4. et al
    . Guideline for opioid therapy and chronic noncancer pain. CMAJ 2017;189:E659–66.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    2017 Canadian Guideline for Opioids for Chronic Non-cancer Pain Values & Preferences statement. Hamilton (ON): McMaster University; 2017. Available: http://nationalpaincentre.mcmaster.ca/documents/ValuesandPreferencesStatementEnglish.pdf (accessed 2017 Dec 1).
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 190 (10)
CMAJ
Vol. 190, Issue 10
12 Mar 2018
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to 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.
The authors respond to “The 2017 Canadian opioid guideline: already time for an overhaul”
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
The authors respond to “The 2017 Canadian opioid guideline: already time for an overhaul”
Jason W. Busse, David Juurlink, D. Norman Buckley, Gordon H. Guyatt
CMAJ Mar 2018, 190 (10) E301; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.68675

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
The authors respond to “The 2017 Canadian opioid guideline: already time for an overhaul”
Jason W. Busse, David Juurlink, D. Norman Buckley, Gordon H. Guyatt
CMAJ Mar 2018, 190 (10) E301; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.68675
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • The 2017 Canadian opioid guideline: already time for an overhaul
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Addressing inaccurate claims about the Canadian opioid guideline
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • An expanded role for blood donor emerging pathogens surveillance
  • Beyond wastewater surveillance: refining environmental pathogen detection in the built environment
  • Observational evidence in support of screening for depression during pregnancy and the postpartum period
Show more Letters

Similar Articles

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • CPD credits
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Accessibiity
  • CMA Civility Standards
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2023, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: cmajgroup@cmaj.ca

Powered by HighWire