AGS GUIDELINES ON PERSISTENT PAIN IN OLDER PERSONS: LACK OF SPECIFIC PHARMACOTHERAPEUTIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To the Editor: The members of the American Geriatrics Society (AGS) panel on Persistent Pain in Older Persons1 surely have to be congratulated for their extensive work in reviewing the literature on pain in older persons. There is no doubt that these guidelines will be helpful in providing better pain management for the elderly, especially the frail ones, in whom pain is too often neglected. Nevertheless, I was somewhat disappointed by the absence of more-precise recommendations regarding the pharmacological treatment of pain in the elderly. Although the table listing the drugs and doses is surely useful, it would have benefited from more comments on specific medications. Although it is well known from geriatricians and practitioners experienced in geriatrics that some medications are to be avoided in the elderly, pain physicians and general practitioners still use them frequently. The best example is amitriptyline. Because of its prominent anticholinergic properties, amitriptyline can cause sedation, cognitive impairment, orthostatic hypotension, arrhythmias, falls, urinary retention, and dry mouth.2 It should therefore be avoided in the elderly, especially in those with cognitive impairment. If an antidepressant is indicated, the secondary amines, nortriptyline and desipramine, are better options.3 This is such a crucial point that it deserved more than a footnote in the table. Carbamazepine has been associated with several side effects, including potentially life-threatening ones, and has numerous drug interactions.4 In clinical practice, elderly patients rarely tolerate it. Because of its proven analgesic effect in several neuropathic pains, its good tolerability, and a paucity of drug-drug interactions, gabapentin appears to be a better choice for older persons and has been recommended as a first-line agent when an adjuvant analgesic is indicated.5 Without specifically recommending using gabapentin rather than carbamazepine, the text accompanying the guidelines could have commented on their respective side-effect profiles. The use of clonazepam and other benzodiazepines as adjuvant analgesics is highly controversial, and critical reviews on these drugs do not support their analgesic effects.6 However, they are well known, especially the long-acting ones, including clonazepam, to cause numerous adverse events in elderly patients.7 The inclusion of clonazepam in the pharmacotherapeutic options, with the same weight as gabapentin, can therefore be detrimental to older patients. Although it has not been included in the opioids list, meperidine has not been identified as an opioid of particular concern. Despite its well-known adverse events, especially in the elderly, due to the accumulation of a toxic metabolite, meperidine is still widely used in hospital units. A warning against its use would have been justified. Finally, although most healthcare practitioners know that nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have to be used with caution in elderly patients, the recent availability of the selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors has created a false sense of safety due to their better gastrointestinal profile. It has now been shown that NSAID-associated renal failure and fluid retention, which are at least as frequent as gastrointestinal toxicity in elderly patients, are encountered with the selective COX-2 inhibitors as often as with the traditional NSAIDs.8,9 The guidelines should thus have emphasized that caution and frequent monitoring of renal function are still warranted when these drugs are prescribed. To help improve the pharmacological management of persistent pain in older persons, future versions of the AGS guidelines should provide more-specific pharmacotherapeutic recommendations reflecting the specificities of the pharmacotherapy of pain in older persons.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".