Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Editorial
. 2022 Aug;129(2):137-142.
doi: 10.1016/j.bja.2022.03.004. Epub 2022 Apr 6.

Misappropriation of the 1986 WHO analgesic ladder: the pitfalls of labelling opioids as weak or strong

Affiliations
Free article
Editorial

Misappropriation of the 1986 WHO analgesic ladder: the pitfalls of labelling opioids as weak or strong

Jos Crush et al. Br J Anaesth. 2022 Aug.
Free article

Abstract

Opioids have a vital role in alleviating pain from cancer and surgery. Despite good intentions, it is now recognised that the original WHO Cancer Pain Relief guidance from 1986, in which opioids were classified as either weak or strong, has been both inadvertently and purposefully misused, thereby contributing to harm from opioid use and misuse. However, the recommendation in the 2018 update of the WHO analgesic ladder that a combination of a high-potency opioid with simple analgesics is better than alternative analgesics for the maintenance of pain relief is also applicable to patients who require short-term opioids. Furthermore, because potential harm through opioid use and misuse is intrinsic to all opioids, whether weak or strong, we argue that the arbitrary classification of opioids either as weak or strong should be discontinued, as this description is not helpful to either prescribers or consumers.

Keywords: WHO analgesic ladder; analgesics; dependence; non-cancer pain; opioid use disorder; strong opioids; weak opioids.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations of interest The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Comment in

Publication types

MeSH terms