Opioid treatment agreements in chronic non-malignant pain: The solution or the problem?

Abstract

Opioid treatment agreements (OTAs) are routinely used in the primary care setting for patients initiating chronic opioid therapy for non-malignant pain despite limited empirical evidence supporting their use. In this commentary, we review the current practice guidelines in Ontario with regard to OTAs and evidence supporting their utilization in practice. We highlight the lack of high-quality evidence that OTAs lead to beneficial outcomes for patients or prescribing physicians and review the ethical quagmire they create in clinical practice. Physicians utilizing OTAs need to be aware of the limitations of OTAs and sensitive to their potential impact on the physician-patient relationship. Instead, we advocate for a return to a collaborative, patient-centered approach with physicians encouraged to involve patients in a shared decision-making process to set mutually agreeable goals for treatment with opioids, to obtain informed consent from patients, and to better tailor these agreements to reflect the interests of all parties involved. Further research and debate are required to improve the effectiveness and ethical justification for using OTAs in clinical practice.