September’s pain management coverage examined postoperative nonopioid options, lessons from sickle cell pain research, and pharmacists’ experiences with controlled-substance prescribing.
September’s Pharmacy Times pain management coverage explored how nonopioid therapies could reduce postoperative opioid exposure while maintaining pain relief. Research on suzetrigine and a fast-acting meloxicam formulation added to that discussion, with important differences in study design and the conclusions each could support.1,2
Other coverage examined how sickle cell pain trials measure treatment success and how pharmacists are navigating controlled-substance prescribing. For pharmacy teams, these developments connect treatment selection with the practical work of assessing outcomes and supporting access. Here are 4 updates from September’s coverage worth revisiting.3,4
In a
They were also more likely to be opioid-free at 6 weeks, while pain scores and functional recovery measures were comparable between groups. The observational design does not establish that suzetrigine caused these differences.1
The interview also highlights access barriers and the limits of using prescription records to assess opioid use. For pharmacists, the findings reinforce the importance of evaluating recovery alongside opioid exposure. A lower refill rate is most useful when patients can still manage their pain and participate in rehabilitation.1
Coverage of a
MR-107A-02 improved pain relief over 48 hours compared with placebo. Approximately 56.9% of recipients remained opioid-free across the treatment periods, compared with 33.1% receiving placebo. Median time to meaningful pain relief was 3.7 hours. The trial was not primarily designed to establish superiority over tramadol.2
The formulation remained under FDA review at the time of coverage. Its potential utility must be considered alongside established nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug risks. Pharmacist review would include cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, and renal considerations, particularly for patients receiving other medications that could increase toxicity.2
An
In an interview, principal investigator Claudia R. Morris, MD, of Emory School of Medicine, explained that the primary end point measured time from study-drug administration to the final parenteral opioid dose. That transition can reflect hospital treatment and discharge practices, making it difficult to isolate a biological treatment effect. Approximately 41% of participants also met criteria for chronic sickle cell pain.3
For pharmacists, the coverage highlights an opportunity to improve opioid-exposure reporting. Investigators had to reconstruct administered doses from infusion and patient-controlled analgesia records. More reliable reporting could strengthen future studies and help distinguish changes in medication use from changes in the patient’s underlying pain.3
A contributor article on
The piece places those experiences within the broader development of pharmacist prescriptive authority. Its relevance to pain management extends beyond obtaining a credential: pharmacy teams must consider how a prescribing role fits into their existing patient-care responsibilities.4
For teams exploring similar roles, the piece offers a starting point for discussing implementation. Useful questions include how prescribing responsibilities would be coordinated with other clinicians and how follow-up would be organized. These operational decisions help translate an expanded role into a clear care process that patients and colleagues can understand.4
