Dispensary Staff Perceptions About the Benefits, Risks, and Safety of Cannabis for Medical Purposes.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic use of cannabis is common in the United States (up to 18.7% of Americans aged ≥12), and dispensaries in the US are proliferating rapidly. However, the efficacy profile of medical cannabis is unclear, and customers often rely on dispensary staff for purchasing decisions. The objective was to describe cannabis dispensary staff perceptions of medical cannabis benefits and risks, as well as its safety in high-risk populations. METHODS: Online Survey study conducted using Qualtrics from February 13, 2020 to October 2, 2020 with a national sample of dispensary staff who reportedinteracting with customers in a cannabis dispensary selling tetrahydrocannabinol-containing products. Participants were queried about benefits ("helpfulness") and risks ("worry") about cannabis for a variety of medical conditions, and safety in older adults and pregnant women on a five-point Likert scale. These results were then collapsed into three categories including "neutral" (3/5). "I don't know" (uncertainty) was a response option for helpfulness and safety. RESULTS: Participants (n = 434) were from 29 states and included patient-facing dispensary staff (40%); managers (32%); pharmacists (13%); and physicians, nurse practitioners, or physician assistants (5%). Over 80% of participants perceived cannabis as helpful for post-traumatic stress disorder (88.7%), epilepsy (85.3%) and cancer (83.4%). Generally, participants were not concerned about potential cannabis risks, including increased use of illicit drugs (76.3%), decreases in intelligence (74.4%), disrupted sleep (71.7%), and new/worsening health problems from medical cannabis use (70.7%). Cannabis was considered safe in older adults by 81.3% of participants, though there was much less consensus on safety in pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS: Cannabis dispensary staff generally view medical cannabis as beneficial and low-risk. However, improvements in dispensary staff training, an increased role for certifying clinicians, and interventions to reduce dispensary staff concerns (e.g., cost, judgment) may improve evidence-based staff recommendations to patients seeking medical cannabis.

First-Year Trajectories of Medical Cannabis Use Among Adults Taking Opioids for Chronic Pain: An Observational Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe first-year trajectories of medical cannabis use and identify characteristics associated with patterns of use in a cohort of adults using opioids for chronic pain. DESIGN: Latent class trajectory analysis of a prospective cohort study using data on the 14-day frequency of medical cannabis use. SETTING: A large academic medical center and four medical cannabis dispensaries in the New York City metropolitan area. SUBJECTS: Adults with chronic pain using opioids and newly certified for medical cannabis in New York between 2018 and 2020. METHODS: Using latent class trajectory analysis, we identified clusters of participants based on the 14-day frequency of medical cannabis use. We used logistic regression to determine factors associated with cluster membership, including sociodemographic characteristics, pain, substance use, and mental health symptoms. RESULTS: Among 99 participants, the mean age was 53 years; 62% were women, and 52% were White. We identified three clusters of medical cannabis use: infrequent use (n = 30, mean use = 1.5 days/14-day period), occasional use (n = 28, mean = 5.7 days/14-day period), and frequent use (n = 41, mean = 12.1 days/14-day period). Within clusters, use patterns did not vary significantly over 52 weeks. Differences were observed in two sociodemographic variables: Frequent (vs infrequent) use was associated with non-Hispanic White race/ethnicity (adjusted odds ratio 4.54, 95% confidence interval 1.49-14.29), while occasional (vs infrequent) use was associated with employment (adjusted odds ratio 13.84, 95% confidence interval 1.21-158.74). CONCLUSIONS: Three clusters of medical cannabis use patterns emerged and were stable over time. Results suggest that structural factors related to race/ethnicity and employment may be major drivers of medical cannabis use, even among adults certified for its use.

Opioid Taper Is Associated with Subsequent Termination of Care: a Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Opioid tapering is increasingly utilized by providers to decrease risks of chronic opioid therapy, but it is unknown whether tapering is associated with termination of care. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether patients taking chronic opioid therapy who experienced opioid tapers were at greater risk of subsequently terminating their care compared with those who were continued on their doses. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of patients in a large, urban health system between 2008 and 2012 with 2 years of follow-up. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients prescribed a stable baseline dose of chronic opioid therapy of at least 25 morphine milligram equivalents per day during a baseline year. MAIN MEASURES: An opioid taper during an exposure year, defined as a reduction in the average daily dose of at least 30% from the baseline dose in both of the two 6-month periods in the year following the baseline year. Opioid dose continuation was defined as any increase in dose, no change in dose, or any decrease up to 30% compared with baseline dose in the exposure year. The primary outcome was termination of care, defined as no outpatient encounters in the health system, in the year following the exposure year. KEY RESULTS: Of 1624 patients on chronic opioid therapy, 207 (15.5%) experienced an opioid taper and 78 (4.8%) experienced termination of care. Compared with opioid dose continuation, opioid taper was significantly associated with termination of care (AOR 4.3 [95% CI 2.2-8.5]). CONCLUSIONS: Opioid taper is associated with subsequent termination of care. These findings invite caution and demonstrate the need to fully understand the risks and benefits of opioid tapers.

Opioid Use During the Six Months After an Emergency Department Visit for Acute Pain: A Prospective Cohort Study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Despite the frequent use of opioids to treat acute pain, the long-term risks and analgesic benefits of an opioid prescription for an individual emergency department (ED) patient with acute pain are still poorly understood and inadequately quantified. Our objective was to determine the frequency of recurrent or persistent opioid use during the 6 months after the ED visit METHODS: This was a prospective, observational cohort study of opioid-naive patients presenting to 2 EDs for acute pain who were prescribed an opioid at discharge. Patients were followed by telephone 6 months after the ED visit. Additionally, we reviewed the statewide prescription monitoring program database. Outcomes included frequency of recurrent and persistent opioid use and frequency of persistent moderate or severe pain 6 months after the ED visit. Persistent opioid use was defined as filling greater than or equal to 6 prescriptions during the 6-month study period. RESULTS: During 9 months beginning in November 2017, 733 patients were approached for participation. Four hundred eighty-four met inclusion criteria and consented to participate. Four hundred ten patients (85%) provided 6-month telephone data. The prescription monitoring database was reviewed for all 484 patients (100%). Most patients (317/484, 66%; 95% confidence interval 61% to 70%) filled only the initial prescription they received in the ED. One in 5 patients (102/484, 21%; 95% confidence interval 18% to 25%) filled at least 2 prescriptions within the 6-month period. Five patients (1%; 95% confidence interval 0% to 2%) met criteria for persistent opioid use. Of these 5 patients, all but 1 reported moderate or severe pain in the affected body part 6 months later. CONCLUSION: Although 1 in 5 opioid-naive ED patients who received an opioid prescription for acute pain on ED discharge filled at least 2 opioid prescriptions in 6 months, only 1% had persistent opioid use. These patients with persistent opioid use were likely to report moderate or severe pain 6 months after the ED visit.

Medical Record Documentation About Opioid Tapering: Examining Benefit-to-Harm Framework and Patient Engagement.

OBJECTIVE: Guidelines recommend that clinicians make decisions about opioid tapering for patients with chronic pain using a benefit-to-harm framework and engaging patients. Studies have not examined clinician documentation about opioid tapering using this framework. DESIGN AND SETTING: Thematic and content analysis of clinician documentation about opioid tapering in patients' medical records in a large academic health system. METHODS: Medical records were reviewed for patients aged 18 or older, without cancer, who were prescribed stable doses of long-term opioid therapy between 10/2015 and 10/2016 then experienced an opioid taper (dose reduction ≥30%) between 10/2016 and 10/2017. Inductive thematic analysis of clinician documentation within six months of taper initiation was conducted to understand rationale for taper, and deductive content analysis was conducted to determine the frequencies of a priori elements of a benefit-to-harm framework. RESULTS: Thematic analysis of 39 patients' records revealed 1) documented rationale for tapering prominently cited potential harms of continuing opioids, rather than observed harms or lack of benefits; 2) patient engagement was variable and disagreement with tapering was prominent. Content analysis found no patients' records with explicit mention of benefit-to-harm assessments. Benefits of continuing opioids were mentioned in 56% of patients' records, observed harms were mentioned in 28%, and potential harms were mentioned in 90%. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, documentation of opioid tapering focused on potential harms of continuing opioids, indicated variable patient engagement, and lacked a complete benefit-to-harm framework. Future initiatives should develop standardized ways of incorporating a benefit-to-harm framework and patient engagement into clinician decisions and documentation about opioid tapering.

Disagreement and Uncertainty Among Experts About how to Respond to Marijuana Use in Patients on Long-term Opioids for Chronic Pain: Results of a Delphi Study.

BACKGROUND: Marijuana use is common among patients on long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) for chronic pain, but there is a lack of evidence to guide clinicians' response. OBJECTIVE: To generate expert consensus about responding to marijuana use among patients on LTOT. DESIGN: Analysis from an online Delphi study. SETTING/SUBJECTS: Clinician experts in pain and opioid management across the United States. METHODS: Participants generated management strategies in response to marijuana use without distinction between medical and nonmedical use, then rated the importance of each management strategy from 1 (not at all important) to 9 (extremely important). A priori rules for consensus were established, and disagreement was explored using cases. Thematic analysis of free-text responses examined factors that influenced participants' decision-making. RESULTS: Of 42 participants, 64% were internal medicine physicians. There was consensus that it is not important to taper opioids as an initial response to marijuana use. There was disagreement about the importance of tapering opioids if there is a pattern of repeated marijuana use without clinical suspicion for a cannabis use disorder (CUD) and consensus that tapering is of uncertain importance if there is suspicion for CUD. Three themes influenced experts' perceptions of the importance of tapering: 1) benefits and harms of marijuana for the individual patient, 2) a spectrum of belief about the overall riskiness of marijuana use, and 3) variable state laws or practice policies. CONCLUSIONS: Experts disagree and are uncertain about the importance of opioid tapering for patients with marijuana use. Experts were influenced by patient factors, provider beliefs, and marijuana policy, highlighting the need for further research.

Race and Gender Are Associated with Opioid Dose Reduction Among Patients on Chronic Opioid Therapy.

OBJECTIVE: Among patients with chronic pain, risk of opioid use is elevated with high opioid dose or concurrent benzodiazepine use. This study examined whether these clinical factors, or sociodemographic factors of race and gender, are associated with opioid dose reduction. DESIGN AND SETTING: A retrospective cohort study of outpatients prescribed chronic opioid therapy between 2007 and 2012 within a large, academic health care system in Bronx, New York, using electronic medical record data. Included patients were prescribed a stable dose of chronic opioid therapy over a one-year "baseline period" and did not have cancer. METHODS: The primary outcome was opioid dose reduction (≥30% reduction from baseline) within two years. Multivariable logistic regression tested the associations of two clinical variables (baseline daily opioid dose and concurrent benzodiazepine prescription) and two sociodemographic variables (race/ethnicity and gender) with opioid dose reduction. RESULTS: Of 1,097 patients, 463 (42.2%) had opioid dose reduction. High opioid dose (≥100 morphine-milligram equivalents [MME]) was associated with lower odds of opioid dose reduction compared with an opioid dose <100 MME (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.54-0.89). Concurrent benzodiazepine prescription was not associated with opioid dose reduction. Black (vs white) race and female (vs male) gender were associated with greater odds of opioid dose reduction (AOR = 1.82, 95% CI = 1.22-2.70; and AOR = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.11-1.83, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Black race and female gender were associated with greater odds of opioid dose reduction, whereas clinical factors of high opioid dose and concurrent benzodiazepine prescription were not. Efforts to reduce opioid dose should target patients based on clinical factors and address potential biases in clinical decision-making.

Managing Concerning Behaviors in Patients Prescribed Opioids for Chronic Pain: A Delphi Study.

BACKGROUND: Current guideline-recommended monitoring of patients prescribed long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) for chronic pain will likely result in increased identification of behaviors of concern for misuse and addiction, but there is a dearth of empiric evidence about how these behaviors should be managed. OBJECTIVE: To establish expert consensus about treatment approaches for common and challenging concerning behaviors that arise among patients on LTOT. DESIGN: We used a Delphi approach, which allows for generation of consensus. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were clinical experts in chronic pain and opioid prescribing recruited from professional societies and other expert groups. MAIN MEASURES: The Delphi process was conducted online, and consisted of an initial brainstorming round to identify common and challenging behaviors, a second round to identify management strategies for each behavior, and two rounds to establish consensus and explore disagreement/uncertainty. KEY RESULTS: Forty-two participants completed round 1, 22 completed round 2, 30 completed round 3, and 28 completed round 4. Half of round 1 participants were female (52%), and the majority were white (83%). Most (71%) were physicians, and most participants practiced in academic primary (40%) or specialty care (19%).The most frequently cited common and challenging behaviors were missing appointments, taking opioids for symptoms other than pain, using more opioid medication than prescribed, asking for an increase in opioid dose, aggressive behavior, and alcohol and other substance use. Across behaviors, participants agreed that patient education and information gathering were important approaches. Participants also agreed that stopping opioids is not important initially, but if initial approaches do not work, tapering opioids and stopping opioids immediately may become important approaches. CONCLUSIONS: This study presents clinical expert consensus on how to manage concerning behaviors among patients on LTOT. Future research is needed to investigate how implementing these management strategies would impact patient outcomes, practice and policy.

Correction to: Managing Concerning Behaviors in Patients Prescribed Opioids for Chronic Pain: a Delphi Study.

In this paper, the author degrees were presented incorrectly. The correct listing is above.

The Use of Online Posts to Identify Barriers to and Facilitators of HIV Pre-exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) Among Men Who Have Sex with Men: A Comparison to a Systematic Review of the Peer-Reviewed Literature.

Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) remains an under-utilized HIV prevention tool among men who have sex with men (MSM). To more comprehensively elucidate barriers and facilitators to PrEP use among US MSM, we conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed published articles and content analysis of online posts about PrEP. We searched peer-reviewed databases (Medline, Web of Science, Google Scholar) using MESH headings and keywords about PrEP and/or HIV prevention from 2005 to 2015. We included original studies among MSM in the US that reported on barriers, facilitators, or other factors related to PrEP use. We also searched online posts and associated comments (news articles, opinion pieces, blogs and other social media posts) in diverse venues (Facebook, Slate Outward, Huffington Post Gay Voices, Queerty, and My PrEP Experience blog) to identify posts about PrEP. We used content analysis to identify themes and compare potential differences between the peer-reviewed literature and online posts. We identified 25 peer-reviewed articles and 28 online posts meeting inclusion criteria. We identified 48 unique barriers and 46 facilitators to using PrEP. These 94 themes fit into six overarching categories: (1) access (n = 14), (2) attitudes/beliefs (n = 24), (3) attributes of PrEP (n = 13), (4) behaviors (n = 11), (5) sociodemographic characteristics (n = 8), and (6) social network (n = 6). In all categories, analysis of online posts resulted in identification of a greater number of unique themes. Thirty-eight themes were identified in the online posts that were not identified in the peer-reviewed literature. We identified barriers and facilitators to PrEP in online posts that were not identified in a systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature. By incorporating data both from a systematic review of peer-reviewed articles and from online posts, we have identified salient and novel information about barriers to and facilitators of PrEP use. Traditional research approaches may not comprehensively capture current factors important for designing and implementing PrEP related interventions.

Pain Management for Primary Care Providers: A Narrative Review of High-Impact Studies, 2014-2016.

Objective: This manuscript reviews high-impact, peer-reviewed studies published from January 2014 to March 2016 that are relevant to pain management in primary care. Given the recent release of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's "Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain" emphasizing the primacy of nonopioid treatment, we focused our review on nonopioid pain management. Design: Narrative review of peer-reviewed literature. Methods: We searched three article summary services and queried expert contacts for high-impact, English-language studies related to the management of pain in adults in primary care. All authors reviewed 142 study titles to arrive at group consensus on article content domains. Within article domains, individual authors selected studies approved by the larger group according to their impact on primary care clinical practice, policy, and research, as well as quality of the study methods. Through iterative discussion, 12 articles were selected for detailed review, discussion, and presentation in this narrative review. Results: We present key articles addressing each of six domains of pain management: pharmacotherapy for acute pain; interventional treatments; medical cannabis; complementary and integrative medicine; care management in chronic pain; and prevention. Within each section, we conclude with implications for pain management in primary care. Conclusions: There is growing evidence for multiple nonopioid treatment modalities available to clinicians for the management of pain in primary care. The dissemination and implementation of these studies, including innovative care management interventions, warrant additional study and support from clinicians, educators, and policy-makers.

Cannabis Use is Associated with Lower Odds of Prescription Opioid Analgesic Use Among HIV-Infected Individuals with Chronic Pain.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is common in the United States and prescribed opioid analgesics use for noncancer pain has increased dramatically in the past two decades, possibly accounting for the current opioid addiction epidemic. Co-morbid drug use in those prescribed opioid analgesics is common, but there are few data on polysubstance use patterns. OBJECTIVE: We explored patterns of use of cigarette, alcohol, and illicit drugs in HIV-infected people with chronic pain who were prescribed opioid analgesics. METHODS: We conducted a secondary data analysis of screening interviews conducted as part of a parent randomized trial of financial incentives to improve HIV outcomes among drug users. In a convenience sample of people with HIV and chronic pain, we collected self-report data on demographic characteristics; pain; patterns of opioid analgesic use (both prescribed and illicit); cigarette, alcohol, and illicit drug use (including cannabis, heroin, and cocaine) within the past 30 days; and current treatment for drug use and HIV. RESULTS: Almost half of the sample of people with HIV and chronic pain reported current prescribed opioid analgesic use (N = 372, 47.1%). Illicit drug use was common (N = 505, 63.9%), and cannabis was the most commonly used illicit substance (N = 311, 39.4%). In multivariate analyses, only cannabis use was significantly associated with lower odds of prescribed opioid analgesic use (adjusted odds ratio = 0.57; 95% confidence interval: 0.38-0.87). Conclusions/Importance: Our data suggest that new medical cannabis legislation might reduce the need for opioid analgesics for pain management, which could help to address adverse events associated with opioid analgesic use.

Increasing Benzodiazepine Prescriptions and Overdose Mortality in the United States, 1996-2013.

OBJECTIVES: To describe trends in benzodiazepine prescriptions and overdose mortality involving benzodiazepines among US adults. METHODS: We examined data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey and multiple-cause-of-death data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. RESULTS: Between 1996 and 2013, the percentage of adults filling a benzodiazepine prescription increased from 4.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.8%, 4.5%) to 5.6% (95% CI = 5.2%, 6.1%), with an annual percent change of 2.5% (95% CI = 2.1%, 3.0%). The quantity of benzodiazepines filled increased from 1.1 (95% CI = 0.9, 1.2) to 3.6 (95% CI = 3.0, 4.2) kilogram lorazepam equivalents per 100 000 adults (annual percent change = 9.0%; 95% CI = 7.6%, 10.3%). The overdose death rate increased from 0.58 (95% CI = 0.55, 0.62) to 3.07 (95% CI = 2.99, 3.14) per 100 000 adults, with a plateau seen after 2010. CONCLUSIONS: Benzodiazepine prescriptions and overdose mortality have increased considerably. Fatal overdoses involving benzodiazepines have plateaued overall; however, no evidence of decreases was found in any group. Interventions to reduce the use of benzodiazepines or improve their safety are needed.

Public Health Detailing-A Successful Strategy to Promote Judicious Opioid Analgesic Prescribing.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate knowledge and prescribing changes following a 2-month public health detailing campaign (one-to-one educational visits) about judicious opioid analgesic prescribing conducted among health care providers in Staten Island, New York City, in 2013. METHODS: Three detailing campaign recommendations were (1) a 3-day supply of opioids is usually sufficient for acute pain, (2) avoid prescribing opioids for chronic noncancer pain, and (3) avoid high-dose opioid prescriptions. Evaluation consisted of a knowledge survey, and assessing prescribing rates and median day supply per prescription. Prescribing data from the 3-month period before the campaign were compared with 2 sequential 3-month periods after the campaign. RESULTS: Among 866 health care providers visited, knowledge increased for all 3 recommendations (P < .01). After the campaign, the overall prescribing rate decreased similarly in Staten Island and other New York City counties (boroughs), but the high-dose prescribing rate decreased more in Staten Island than in other boroughs (P < .01). Median day supply remained stable in Staten Island and increased in other boroughs. CONCLUSIONS: The public health detailing campaign improved knowledge and likely prescribing practices and could be considered by other jurisdictions to promote judicious opioid prescribing.

"A place at the table:" a qualitative analysis of community board members' experiences with academic HIV/AIDS research.

BACKGROUND: Community advisory boards (CAB) are proposed as one mechanism to carry out successful community based participatory research (CBPR), but the presence of CABs may be insufficient to optimize academic-community partnerships. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with minority members of a CAB partnered with a HIV/AIDS research center and identified three themes. RESULTS: First, lack of trust in researchers included two subthemes: researchers' lacked respect for community-based organizations' (CBO's) interests and paid inadequate attention to building trust. Second, power imbalance included three subthemes: CAB members felt like inferior "token" members, felt that a lack of communication led to disempowerment, and held preconceived beliefs of researchers that led to perceived power imbalance. Third, CAB members suggested best practices, including using collaborations to build trust, actively allocating power, and sharing tangible research benefits with CBOs. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that CABs must be founded on trust and instilled with power to meet the tenets of CBPR.

Factors Associated with Prescription of Opioids and Co-prescription of Sedating Medications in Individuals with HIV.

Opioids are often prescribed for chronic pain, and opioid risks such as overdose and death are heightened when opioids are co-prescribed with other sedating medications. We investigated factors associated with chronic opioid prescription, alone and in combination with benzodiazepines and muscle relaxants, in a clinical cohort of individuals with HIV. We used multivariable logistic regression models to determine participant clinical and demographic characteristics that are associated with chronic prescription of opioids or chronic co-prescription of opioids with sedating medications. Among 1474 participants, chronic prescription of opioids occurred in 253 individuals (17.2 %), and chronic co-prescription occurred in 90 individuals (6.1 %). Age >50, public insurance as compared to private insurance, and symptoms of depression and anxiety were significantly associated with chronic opioid prescription and chronic co-prescription. Our findings raise concern that opioid prescription and co-prescription of sedating medications occurs disproportionately in patients for whom use is riskier.

Pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic treatments for chronic pain in individuals with HIV: a systematic review.

Chronic pain occurs in as many as 85% of individuals with HIV and is associated with substantial functional impairment. Little guidance is available for HIV providers seeking to address their patients' chronic pain. We conducted a systematic review to identify clinical trials and observational studies that examined the impact of pharmacologic or non-pharmacologic interventions on pain and/or functional outcomes among HIV-infected individuals with chronic pain in high-development countries. Eleven studies met inclusion criteria and were mostly low or very low quality. Seven examined pharmacologic interventions (gabapentin, pregabalin, capsaicin, analgesics including opioids) and four examined non-pharmacologic interventions (cognitive behavioral therapy, self-hypnosis, smoked cannabis). The only controlled studies with positive results were of capsaicin and cannabis, and had short-term follow-up (≤12 weeks). Among the seven studies of pharmacologic interventions, five had substantial pharmaceutical industry sponsorship. These findings highlight several important gaps in the HIV/chronic pain literature that require further research.

When human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) treatment goals conflict with guideline-based opioid prescribing: A qualitative study of HIV treatment providers.

BACKGROUND: Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients have a high prevalence of chronic pain and opioid use, making HIV care a critical setting for improving the safety of opioid prescribing. Little is known about HIV treatment providers' perspectives about opioid prescribing to patients with chronic pain. METHODS: The authors administered a questionnaire and conducted semistructured telephone interviews with 18 HIV treatment providers (infectious disease specialists, general internists, family medicine physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants) in Bronx, NY. Open-ended interview questions focused on providers' experiences, beliefs, and attitudes about opioid prescribing and about the use of guideline-based opioid prescribing practices (conservative prescribing, and monitoring for and responding to misuse). Transcripts were thematically analyzed using a modified grounded theory approach. RESULTS: Eighteen HIV treatment providers included 13 physicians, four nurse practitioners, and one physician assistant. They were 62% female, 56% white, and practiced as HIV treatment providers for a mean of 14.6 years. Most reported always or almost always using opioid treatment agreements (56%) and urine drug testing (61%) with their patients on long-term opioid therapy. HIV treatment providers tended to view opioid prescribing for chronic pain within the "HIV paradigm," a set of priorities and principles defined by three key themes: (1) primacy of HIV goals, (2) familiarity with substance use, and (3) the clinician as ally. The HIV paradigm sometimes supported, and sometimes conflicted with, guideline-based opioid prescribing practices. For HIV treatment providers, perceived alignment with the HIV paradigm determined whether and how guideline-based opioid prescribing practices were adopted. For example, the primacy of HIV goals superseded conservative opioid prescribing when providers prescribed opioids with the goal of retaining patients in HIV care. CONCLUSION: These findings highlight unique factors in HIV care that influence adoption of guideline-based opioid prescribing practices. These factors should be considered in future research and initiatives to address opioid prescribing in HIV care.