Should We Use COMM (Current Opioid Misuse Measure) to Screen for Opioid Abuse in Patients With Cancer Pain?

BACKGROUND: Growing concerns about opioid use disorder (OUD) and the resulting decrease in opioid availability for patients with cancer pain highlight the need for reliable screening tools to identify the subset of patients at increased risk for aberrant opioid use. Our study examines the utility of Current Opioid Misuse Measure (COMM) recommended by the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for Adult Cancer Pain. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed prospectively collected patient-reported outcomes of 444 consecutive patients with cancer seen in pain clinics of a cancer center at 2 time points within 100 days. The relationship of COMM to other OUD screening tools, pain, opioid doses, patient demographics, and mortality was examined using univariate and multivariable logistic regression. We also examined individual items of COMM for face validity. RESULTS: Among 444 patients who completed pain surveys at 2 time points, 157 (35.4%) did not complete COMM surveys. Using a COMM cutoff of ≥13, a total of 84 patients (29.3%; 84/287) scored positive for aberrant drug use. As patients remained on opioids for 49 to 100 days, the likelihood of improving COMM score (turning from positive to negative) was 6.1 times greater than the reverse. The number of patients with COMM ≥13 was 3.8 times higher than the number of patients with CPT diagnostic codes for OUD, 5.3 times higher than those with a positive urine drug screening, and 21 times higher than those with a positive CAGE (Cut Down, Annoyed, Guilty, Eye-Opener Questionnaire) score. COMM ≥13 was not associated with pain relief response (worst pain intensity score ≥2 points on the Brief Pain Inventory), opioid doses, gender, or age. Contrary to the intended use of COMM to identify aberrant opioid use, COMM ≥13 predicted mortality: patients with COMM ≥13 were 1.9 times more likely to die within 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Our study found that using COMM in a cancer population may significantly overestimate the risk of opioid misuse. Using COMM without modifications can create an additional barrier to cancer pain management, such as limiting appropriate opioid use.

Does transdermal fentanyl work in patients with low BMI? Patient-reported outcomes of pain and percent pain relief in cancer patients on transdermal fentanyl.

BACKGROUND: Low body mass index (BMI) is suspected of being associated with low transdermal fentanyl (TDF) blood levels and worse pain relief. Clinical pain data to support this claim are lacking. METHODS: Using a Chronic Pain Registry, we identified 901 cancer patients who received TDF at outpatient pain service clinics of our cancer center from 7/1/2011 to 12/1/2016. Of these, 240 patients had a BMI measure, pain intensity, and pain relief scores documented within 30 days of a TDF order. We examined associations between BMI, TDF dose, Worst and Least pain scores, and pain relief scores using standard statistical tests. RESULTS: In cancer patients receiving TDF, low BMI (<18.5) was significantly associated with greater pain relief irrespective of TDF dose and borderline significantly associated with greater percent pain relief after controlling for age, cancer diagnoses, and pain etiology (P = .073), suggesting that low BMI may independently predict better pain relief in cancer patients. As there were no significant associations between BMI and TDF dose, we find no basis for BMI-dependent dose modification or avoiding TDF in cachectic and low BMI patients. CONCLUSIONS: When predicting percent pain relief, we conclude that there is no basis for avoiding TDF or modifying its dose in cancer patients with low BMI and cachexia.

Patient-Reported Outcomes and Opioid Use by Outpatient Cancer Patients.

The Memorial Sloan Kettering Pain Registry contains patient characteristics, treatments, and outcomes for a prospective cohort of 1,534 chronic pain cancer patients who were seen at outpatient pain service clinics. Average pain intensity (Brief Pain Inventory) was reported as mild by 24.6% of patients, moderate by 41.5%, and severe by 33.9%. The patient's report of average percent pain relief and health state (EuroQOL 5 dimensions) was inversely related to average pain intensity category, whereas measures of pain interference, number of worst pain locations, and physical and psychological distress were directly related to pain intensity category. Eighty-six percent of patients received an opioid at 1 or more clinic encounters. Regression analysis revealed that male sex or being younger (65 years of age or younger) was associated with a greater likelihood of an opioid ordered. Male sex nearly doubled the likelihood of a higher dose being ordered than female sex. Bivariate analysis found that patients receiving opioids reported significantly more pain relief than no-opioid patients. However, patients receiving opioids had higher pain interference scores, lower index of health state, and more physical distress than no-opioid patients Our results identify the need to consider opioid use and dosage when attempting to understand patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and factors affecting pain management. PERSPECTIVE: This report describes the results of the analyses of PROs and patient-related electronic health record data collected under standard of care from cancer patients at outpatient pain management clinics of Anesthesiology and Palliative Care at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Consideration of sex and age as predictors of opioid use is critical in attempting to understand PROs and their relationship to pain management.

Intravenous Acetaminophen for Perioperative Pain Control in Adult Elective Neurospine Surgical Patients: A Retrospective Case-Control Study.

Adding intravenous (IV) acetaminophen to an opioid-based regimen as multimodal pain management for perioperative pain control in adults undergoing spine surgery can lead to effective pain control, reduce the risk of opioid-related adverse effects, and facilitate postoperative neurologic evaluation for surgical outcomes. This descriptive pilot study investigated the analgesic effect of a single dose of IV acetaminophen administered intraoperatively as routine practice for perioperative pain management for adults undergoing elective spine surgery. A retrospective comparative cohort study compared an IV acetaminophen group with a group not receiving IV acetaminophen for primary outcomes measured by visual analog scale (VAS) and associated secondary outcomes. The IV acet-aminophen group had lower mean VAS scores than the group not receiving IV acetaminophen (4.33 vs 6.22, P = .01, at 60 minutes after entry into the postanesthesia care unit [PACU] for procedure level 4; 2.43 vs 3.11, P = .002, at PACU discharge for procedure level 3). The study did not show consistently lower VAS scores for the IV acetaminophen group vs the group not receiving IV acetaminophen. No difference was found for other secondary outcomes between groups. Future prospective studies are needed to assess the analgesic effects of IV acetaminophen for spine surgery cases.

Variation in Rehabilitation Treatment Patterns for Hip Fracture Treated With Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Recommendations for health care redesign often advocate for comparative effectiveness research that is patient-centered. For patients who require rehabilitation services, a first step in this research process is to understand current practices for specific patient groups. OBJECTIVE: To document in detail the physical and occupational therapy treatment activities for inpatient hip fracture rehabilitation among 3 patient subgroups distinguished by their early rate of functional recovery between time of surgery to rehabilitation admission. DESIGN: Multicenter prospective observational cohort, practice-based evidence, study. SETTING: Seven skilled nursing facilities and 11 inpatient rehabilitation facilities across the United States. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 226 patients with hip fractures treated with hip arthroplasty. METHODS: Comparisons of physical and occupational therapy treatment activities among 3 groups with different initial recovery trajectory (IRT) rates (slower, moderate, faster). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Percent of patients in each IRT group exposed to each physical and occupational therapy activity (exposure), and mean minutes per week for each activity (intensity). RESULTS: The number of patients exposed to different physical or occupational therapy activities varied within the entire sample. More specifically, among the 3 IRT groups, significant differences in exposure occurred for 44% of physical therapy activities and 39% of occupational therapy activities. More patients in the slower recovery group, IRT 1, received basic activities of daily living treatments and more patients in the faster recovery group, IRT 3, received advanced activities. The moderate recovery group, IRT 2, had some treatments similar to IRT 1 group and others similar to IRT 3 group. CONCLUSIONS: Analyses of practice-based evidence on inpatient rehabilitation of hip fracture patients treated with arthroplasty identified differences in therapy activities among three patient groups classified by IRT rates. These results may enhance physiatrists', other physicians', and rehabilitation teams' understanding of inpatient rehabilitation for these patients and help design future comparative effectiveness research.

Psychotropic Medication Use During Inpatient Rehabilitation for Traumatic Brain Injury.

OBJECTIVE: To describe psychotropic medication administration patterns during inpatient rehabilitation for traumatic brain injury (TBI) and their relation to patient preinjury and injury characteristics. DESIGN: Prospective observational cohort. SETTING: Multiple acute inpatient rehabilitation units or hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals with TBI (N=2130; complicated mild, moderate, or severe) admitted for inpatient rehabilitation. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Not applicable. RESULTS: Most frequently administered were narcotic analgesics (72% of sample), followed by antidepressants (67%), anticonvulsants (47%), anxiolytics (33%), hypnotics (30%), stimulants (28%), antipsychotics (25%), antiparkinson agents (25%), and miscellaneous psychotropics (18%). The psychotropic agents studied were administered to 95% of the sample, with 8.5% receiving only 1 and 31.8% receiving ≥6. Degree of psychotropic medication administration varied widely between sites. Univariate analyses indicated younger patients were more likely to receive anxiolytics, antidepressants, antiparkinson agents, stimulants, antipsychotics, and narcotic analgesics, whereas those older were more likely to receive anticonvulsants and miscellaneous psychotropics. Men were more likely to receive antipsychotics. All medication classes were less likely administered to Asians and more likely administered to those with more severe functional impairment. Use of anticonvulsants was associated with having seizures at some point during acute care or rehabilitation stays. Narcotic analgesics were more likely for those with history of drug abuse, history of anxiety and depression (premorbid or during acute care), and severe pain during rehabilitation. Psychotropic medication administration increased rather than decreased during the course of inpatient rehabilitation in each of the medication categories except for narcotics. This observation was also true for medication administration within admission functional levels (defined by cognitive FIM scores), except for those with higher admission FIM cognitive scores. CONCLUSIONS: Many psychotropic medications are used during inpatient rehabilitation. In general, lower admission FIM cognitive score groups were administered more of the medications under investigation compared with those with higher cognitive function at admission. Considerable site variation existed regarding medications administered. The current investigation provides baseline data for future studies of effectiveness.

Acute rehospitalizations during inpatient rehabilitation for spinal cord injury.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate frequency of and reasons for readmission to acute care (RTAC) during inpatient rehabilitation after traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI), and to identify factors associated with RTAC. DESIGN: Prospective observational cohort. SETTING: Inpatient rehabilitation. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals with SCI (N=1376) consecutively admitted for inpatient rehabilitation; 1032 randomly selected for model development; 344 selected for model cross-validation. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: RTAC, RTAC reasons, rehabilitation length of stay (LOS), discharge location and FIM, rehospitalization between discharge and year 1, and 1-year outcomes: FIM, Craig Handicap Assessment and Reporting Technique, and Patient Health Questionnaire-9. RESULTS: Participants (n=116; 11%) experienced RTAC with a total 143 episodes--96 patients experienced only 1 RTAC, while 14 had 2 RTACs, 5 had 3 RTACs, and 1 had 4 RTACs. The most common RTAC reasons were surgery (36%), infection (22%), noninfectious respiratory (14%), and gastrointestinal (8%). Mean days ± SD from rehabilitation admission to first RTAC was 27 ± 30 days. Seventy-four (7%) patients had at least 1 RTAC for medical reasons and 46 (4%) for surgical reasons. Regression analyses indicated several variables were associated with RTACs: greater admission medical severity, lower admission cognitive FIM, pressure ulcer acquired in acute care, and study site. Medical RTACs were associated with higher body mass index, lower admission cognitive and motor FIM, payer, and study site. Predictors of surgical RTAC were longer time from injury to rehabilitation admission and study site. After controlling for the other variables, the only outcome RTAC influenced was longer rehabilitation LOS. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 11% of SCI patients experience RTAC during the course of rehabilitation for a variety of medical and surgical reasons. RTACs are associated with longer rehabilitation LOS.

Initial recovery trajectories among patients with hip fracture: a conceptual approach to exploring comparative effectiveness in postacute care.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether clusters of patients with hip fracture and with distinct initial recovery trajectories (IRT) could be identified by using practice-based evidence data and to examine the validity of these data. DESIGN: Analysis of multisite prospective observational cohort study database. SETTING: Eighteen skilled nursing and inpatient rehabilitation facilities. PATIENTS: Patients with hip fractures (N = 226) treated with joint replacement and admitted to skilled nursing or inpatient rehabilitation facilities, subset (n = 85), with telephone follow-up results approximately 8 months after rehabilitation discharge. Patients' ages were 76.8 ± 11.4 years; the majority were women (78%) and white (87%). METHODS: Measurements included medical severity by using the Comprehensive Severity Index and functional levels by using Functional Independence Measure (FIM). The IRT was calculated for each patient as the rate of change in function from the time of surgery to rehabilitation admission. We used cluster analysis to partition patients into subsets that shared common IRT scores. Validity was explored by comparing subgroups across patient characteristics and treatment patterns. Significance was defined as P ≤ .05. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASUREMENTS: IRT grouping, Comprehensive Severity Index, FIM, discharge location, living location at follow-up. RESULTS: We identified 3 patient clusters with differentiated IRT scores: group 1: 4.96 ± 2.45 (range, 0.4-8.6) FIM point change per day; group 2: 12.42 ± 2.51 (range, 8.9-17.0); group 3: 26.80 ± 13.78 (range, 17.5-70.0). Clinical group validation was established from statistically different Comprehensive Severity Index scores on admission; FIM scores at admission, discharge, and follow-up; and discharge and 8-month living settings. Calculation of IRT recovery curves by using FIM scores and associated time in days through logarithmic regression curves confirmed each group's IRT remained distinct through rehabilitation and follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The IRT concept appears to be valid in patients with hip fracture who were treated with hip arthroplasty, and may assist in evaluating and comparing the effectiveness of postacute rehabilitation services.

Analysis of rehabilitation activities within skilled nursing and inpatient rehabilitation facilities after hip replacement for acute hip fracture.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize rehabilitation services in two types of postacute facilities in patients who underwent hip replacement following a hip fracture. DESIGN: Multisite prospective observational cohort from 6 freestanding skilled nursing facilities and 11 inpatient rehabilitation facilities. Patients (n = 218) with hip fracture who had either hemiarthroplasty or total hip arthroplasty followed by rehabilitation at skilled nursing facilities or inpatient rehabilitation facilities were enrolled. Using a point-of-care methodology, we recorded data from actual physical therapy and occupational therapy sessions completed including functional outcomes during the postacute admission. RESULTS: Onset time from surgical repair to rehabilitation admission was not significantly different between sites. Average skilled nursing facilities length of stay was 24.7 +/- 13.6 days, whereas inpatient rehabilitation facilities was 13.0 +/- 5.7 days (P < 0.01). Total hours of physical therapy and occupational therapy services per patient day were 1.2 in skilled nursing facilities and 2.0 in inpatient rehabilitation facilities. For weekdays only, these data changed to 1.6 in skilled nursing facilities and 2.6 hrs per patient in inpatient rehabilitation facilities (P < 0.01). Patients in inpatient rehabilitation facilities accrued more time for gait training and exercise in physical therapy, which was found to be 48% and 40% greater, respectively, through day 8. In occupational therapy, patients of inpatient rehabilitation facilities had more time allocated to lower body dressing and transfers. CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences in rehabilitation activities were observed, and intensity was notably different within the first 8 therapy days even though baseline demographics and medical complexity were comparable across facility types. Our data suggest that after more complex hip replacement surgery, hip fracture patients can tolerate more intensive therapy earlier within the rehabilitation program.

Opioid pharmacotherapy for chronic non-cancer pain in the United States: a research guideline for developing an evidence-base.

UNLABELLED: This document reports the consensus of an interdisciplinary panel of research and clinical experts charged with reviewing the use of opioids for chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) and formulating guidelines for future research. Prescribing opioids for chronic noncancer pain has recently escalated in the United States. Contrasting with increasing opioid use are: 1) The lack of evidence supporting long-term effectiveness; 2) Escalating misuse of prescription opioids including abuse and diversion; and 3) Uncertainty about the incidence and clinical salience of multiple, poorly characterized adverse drug events (ADEs) including endocrine dysfunction, immunosuppression and infectious disease, opioid-induced hyperalgesia and xerostomia, overdose, falls and fractures, and psychosocial complications. Chief among the limitations of current evidence are: 1) Sparse evidence on long-term opioid effectiveness in chronic pain patients due to the short-term time frame of clinical trials; 2) Insufficiently comprehensive outcome assessment; and 3) Incomplete identification and quantification of ADEs. The panel called for a strategic interdisciplinary approach to the problem domain in which basic scientists and clinicians cooperate to resolve urgent issues and generate a comprehensive evidence base. It offered 4 recommendations in 3 areas: 1) A research strategy for studying the effectiveness of long-term opioid pharmacotherapy; 2) Improvements in evidence-generation methodology; and 3) Potential research topics for generating new evidence. PERSPECTIVE: Prescribing opioids for CNCP has outpaced the growth of scientific evidence bearing on the benefits and harms of these interventions. The need for a strong evidence base is urgent. This guideline offers a strategic approach to creating a comprehensive evidence base to guide safe and effective management of CNCP.

Association between patient-controlled analgesia pump use and postoperative surgical site infection in intestinal surgery patients.

BACKGROUND: Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) pumps are widely used after surgery, but their association with various outcomes is not completely understood. Is PCA pump use related to the incidence of postoperative surgical site infections among patients undergoing open intestinal surgery? MATERIALS AND METHODS: We undertook a comprehensive retrospective chart review of 515 randomly selected patients over age 18 who had major rectal or intestinal surgery (Diagnosis Related Groups [DRGs] 146-149) between January 1994 and March 1997 from eight community or teaching hospitals along the U.S. west coast. Of these patients, 214 used PCA pumps. Outcome measures were in-hospital postoperative surgical site infections, respiratory complications, ileus/abdominal distention, urinary tract infection/urinary retention, and length of stay. RESULTS: Use of a PCA pump was significantly associated with increased in-hospital postoperative surgical site infections (10.7% for PCA, 4.0% for no PCA). The odds ratio for PCA use was about 4.0 after controlling for many variables, including severity of illness at admission, body mass index, preadmission use of corticosteroids, perforated viscus, number of previous abdominal operations, wound classification category, hypothermia, malnutrition on admission, preoperative antibiotic use within 2 h before incision, time from hospital admission to surgery, skin prep to incision time, anesthesia start to incision time, surgical skin to skin time, wound closure type, time from incision closure to the start of PCA, use of drains, blood product use, central line use, line infection, mobility assistance required, hospital, DRG, and surgeon. CONCLUSION: No confounding variables explained the significant association between PCA pump use and in-hospital surgical site infection. These results stand firmly on data that merit additional study to further elucidate possible immunologic effects of PCA pumps.