"To prescribe or not to prescribe, that is the question": Perspectives on opioid prescribing for chronic, cancer-related pain from clinicians who treat pain in survivorship.

BACKGROUND: Opioid pain management in cancer survivorship is a complex and understudied topic. METHODS: The authors conducted in-depth, qualitative interviews to understand clinician approaches to opioid pain management in chronic cancer pain and to generate ideas for improvement. They used a rigorous, inductive, qualitative, descriptive approach to examine clinician (n = 20) perspectives about opioid pain management in survivorship, including oncologists (n = 5), palliative care clinicians (n = 8), primary care clinicians (n = 5), and pain management specialists (n = 2). RESULTS: The findings indicated that no consistent medical home exists for chronic pain management in cancer survivors and that there are fundamental differences in how each subspecialty approaches chronic pain management in survivorship (e.g., "Do we think of this as noncancer pain or cancer pain?… This is in this limbo zone-this gray zone-because it's cancer-related pain, right?"). Simultaneously, clinicians are influenced by their peers' perceptions of their opioid prescribing decisions, sparking intraprofessional tension when disagreement occurs. In these instances, clinicians described overthinking and doubting their clinical decision-making as well as a sense of judgment, pressure, and/or shame. Finally, clinicians acknowledged a fear of consequences for opioid prescribing decisions. Specifically, participants cited conflict with patients, sometimes escalating to aggression and threats of violence, as well as potential disciplinary actions and/or legal consequences. CONCLUSIONS: Participants suggested that opportunities to improve chronic cancer pain care include developing clear, systematic guidance for chronic cancer pain management, facilitating clinician communication and consultation, creating tailored survivorship care plans in partnership with patients, and developing accessible, evidence-based, complementary pain treatments.

Benefits, Harms, and Stakeholder Perspectives Regarding Opioid Therapy for Pain in Individuals With Metastatic Cancer: Protocol for a Descriptive Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Opioids are a key component of pain management among patients with metastatic cancer pain. However, the evidence base available to guide opioid-related decision-making in individuals with advanced cancer is limited. Patients with advanced cancer or cancer that is unlikely to be cured frequently experience pain. Opioids are a key component of pain management among patients with metastatic cancer pain. Many individuals with advanced cancer are now living long enough to experience opioid-related harm. Emerging evidence from chronic noncancer pain literature suggests that longer-term opioid therapy may have limited benefits for pain and function, and opioid-related harms are also a major concern. However, whether these benefits and harms of opioids apply to patients with cancer-related pain is unknown. OBJECTIVE: This manuscript outlines the protocol for the "Opioid Therapy for Pain in Individuals With Metastatic Cancer: The Benefits, Harms, and Stakeholder Perspectives (BEST) Study." The study aims to better understand opioid decision-making in patients with advanced cancer, along with opioid benefits and harms, through prospective examination of patients' pain experiences and opioid side effects and understanding the decision-making by patients, care partners, and clinicians. METHODS: This is a multicenter, prospective cohort study that aims to enroll 630 patients with advanced cancer, 20 care partners, and 20 clinicians (670 total participants). Patient participants must have an advanced solid cancer diagnosis, defined by the American Cancer Society as cancer that is unlikely to be cured. We will recruit patient participants within 12 weeks after diagnosis so that we can understand opioid benefits, harms, and perspectives on opioid decision-making throughout the course of their advanced cancer (up to 2 years). We will also specifically elicit information regarding long-term opioid use (ie, opioids for ≥90 consecutive days) and exclude patients on long-term opioid therapy before an advanced cancer diagnosis. Lived-experience perspectives related to opioid use in those with advanced cancer will be captured by qualitative interviews with a subset of patients, clinicians, and care partners. Our data collection will be grounded in a behavioral decision research approach that will allow us to develop future interventions to inform opioid-related decision-making for patients with metastatic cancer. RESULTS: Data collection began in October 2022 and is anticipated to end by November 2024. CONCLUSIONS: Upon successful execution of our study protocol, we anticipate the development of a comprehensive evidence base on opioid therapy in individuals with advanced cancer guided by the behavioral decision research framework. The information gained from this study will be used to guide interventions to facilitate opioid decisions among patients, clinicians, and care partners. Given the limited evidence base about opioid therapy in people with cancer, we envision this study will have significant real-world implications for cancer-related pain management and opioid-related clinical decision-making. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/54953.

Subthreshold opioid use disorder prevention (STOP) trial: a cluster randomized clinical trial: study design and methods.

BACKGROUND: Preventing progression to moderate or severe opioid use disorder (OUD) among people who exhibit risky opioid use behavior that does not meet criteria for treatment with opioid agonists or antagonists (subthreshold OUD) is poorly understood. The Subthreshold Opioid Use Disorder Prevention (STOP) Trial is designed to study the efficacy of a collaborative care intervention to reduce risky opioid use and to prevent progression to moderate or severe OUD in adult primary care patients with subthreshold OUD. METHODS: The STOP trial is a cluster randomized controlled trial, randomized at the PCP level, conducted in 5 distinct geographic sites. STOP tests the efficacy of the STOP intervention in comparison to enhanced usual care (EUC) in adult primary care patients with risky opioid use that does not meet criteria for moderate-severe OUD. The STOP intervention consists of (1) a practice-embedded nurse care manager (NCM) who provides patient participant education and supports primary care providers (PCPs) in engaging and monitoring patient-participants; (2) brief advice, delivered to patient participants by their PCP and/or prerecorded video message, about health risks of opioid misuse; and (3) up to 6 sessions of telephone health coaching to motivate and support behavior change. EUC consists of primary care treatment as usual, plus printed overdose prevention educational materials and an educational video on cancer screening. The primary outcome measure is self-reported number of days of risky (illicit or nonmedical) opioid use over 180 days, assessed monthly via text message using items from the Addiction Severity Index and the Current Opioid Misuse Measure. Secondary outcomes assess other substance use, mental health, quality of life, and healthcare utilization as well as PCP prescribing and monitoring behaviors. A mixed effects negative binomial model with a log link will be fit to estimate the difference in means between treatment and control groups using an intent-to-treat population. DISCUSSION: Given a growing interest in interventions for the management of patients with risky opioid use, and the need for primary care-based interventions, this study potentially offers a blueprint for a feasible and effective approach to improving outcomes in this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, identifier NCT04218201, January 6, 2020.

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.

Expert consensus-based guidance on approaches to opioid management in individuals with advanced cancer-related pain and nonmedical stimulant use.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians treating cancer-related pain with opioids regularly encounter nonmedical stimulant use (i.e., methamphetamine, cocaine), yet there is little evidence-based management guidance. The aim of the study is to identify expert consensus on opioid management strategies for an individual with advanced cancer and cancer-related pain with nonmedical stimulant use according to prognosis. METHODS: The authors conducted two modified Delphi panels with palliative care and addiction experts. In Panel A, the patient's prognosis was weeks to months and in Panel B the prognosis was months to years. Experts reviewed, rated, and commented on the case using a 9-point Likert scale from 1 (very inappropriate) to 9 (very appropriate) and explained their responses. The authors applied the three-step analytical approach outlined in the RAND/UCLA to determine consensus and level of clinical appropriateness of management strategies. To better conceptualize the quantitative results, they thematically analyzed and coded participant comments. RESULTS: Consensus was achieved for all management strategies. The 120 Experts were mostly women (47 [62%]), White (94 [78%]), and physicians (115 [96%]). For a patient with cancer-related and nonmedical stimulant use, regardless of prognosis, it was deemed appropriate to continue opioids, increase monitoring, and avoid opioid tapering. Buprenorphine/naloxone transition was inappropriate for a patient with a short prognosis and of uncertain appropriateness for a patient with a longer prognosis. CONCLUSION: Study findings provide urgently needed consensus-based guidance for clinicians managing cancer-related pain in the context of stimulant use and highlight a critical need to develop management strategies to address stimulant use disorder in people with cancer. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Among palliative care and addiction experts, regardless of prognosis, it was deemed appropriate to continue opioids, increase monitoring, and avoid opioid tapering in the context of cancer-related pain and nonmedical stimulant use. Buprenorphine/naloxone transition as a harm reduction measure was inappropriate for a patient with a short prognosis and of uncertain appropriateness for a patient with a longer prognosis.

"I Refused to Get Addicted to Opioids": Exploring Attitudes About Opioid Use Disorder in Patients With Advanced Cancer Pain and Their Support People.

Patients with advanced cancer are commonly prescribed opioids, yet patient attitudes about opioid risks (eg, opioid use disorder, or OUD) are understudied. Our objective was to use in-depth qualitative interviews to understand perceptions of opioid prescribing and OUD in patients with advanced, solid-tumor cancers and their support people. We conducted a qualitative study using a rigorous inductive, qualitative descriptive approach to examine attitudes about OUD in patients with advanced cancer (n = 20) and support providers (n = 11). Patients with cancer hold 2 seemingly distinct views: prescription opioids are addictive, yet OUD cannot happen to me or my loved one. Participants described general concerns about the addictive nature of prescription opioids ("My biggest concern… would just be the risk of getting addicted to the medication or even like, overdosing it"), while separating cancer pain management from OUD when considering prescription opioid risks and benefits ("They need to make sure they get the right ones, when they're taking it away from you."). Finally, participants identified personal characteristics and behaviors that they felt were protective against developing OUD (commonly control, willpower, and responsibility). This rigorous qualitative study demonstrates that patients with advanced cancer and their support people simultaneously hold concerns about the addictive nature of prescription opioids, while distancing from perceptions of OUD risks when using opioids for cancer pain management. Given high rates of opioid exposure during advanced cancer treatment, it is important to explore opportunities to promote a balanced understanding of prescription opioid use and OUD risks in this population. PERSPECTIVE: Though prescription opioids carry risk of OUD, there is little data to help guide patients with advanced cancer. Findings suggest that there is a need to develop new, innovative strategies to promote effective pain management and minimize opioid risks in this complex population.

Manifestations of Opioid Stigma in Patients With Advanced Cancer: Perspectives From Patients and Their Support Providers.

PURPOSE: Stigma surrounding prescription opioids, or opioid stigma, is increasingly recognized as a barrier to effective and guideline-concordant cancer pain management. Patients with advanced cancer report high rates of pain and prescription opioid exposure, yet little is known about how opioid stigma may manifest in this population. METHODS: We conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with 20 patients with advanced cancer and 11 support providers between March 2020, and May 2021. We took a rigorous inductive, qualitative descriptive approach to characterize how opioid stigma manifests in the lives of patients with advanced cancer. RESULTS: Patients and their support providers described three primary manifestations of opioid stigma: (1) direct experiences with opioid stigma and discrimination in health care settings (eg, negative, stigmatizing interactions in pharmacies or a pain clinic); (2) concerns about opioid stigma affecting patient care in the future, or anticipated stigma; and (3) opioid-restricting attitudes and behaviors that may reflect internalized stigma and fear of addiction (eg, feelings of guilt). CONCLUSION: This qualitative study advances our understanding of opioid stigma manifestations in patients with advanced cancer, as well as coping strategies that patients may use to alleviate their unease (eg, minimizing prescription opioid use, changing clinicians, and distancing from perceptions of addiction). In recognition of the costs of undermanaged cancer pain, it is important to consider innovative treatment strategies to address opioid stigma and improve pain management for patients with advanced cancer. Future research should examine opportunities to build an effective, multilevel opioid stigma intervention targeting patients, clinicians, and health care systems.

Consensus-Based Guidance on Opioid Management in Individuals With Advanced Cancer-Related Pain and Opioid Misuse or Use Disorder.

Importance: Opioid misuse and opioid use disorder (OUD) are important comorbidities in people with advanced cancer and cancer-related pain, but there is a lack of consensus on treatment. Objective: To develop consensus among palliative care and addiction specialists on the appropriateness of various opioid management strategies in individuals with advanced cancer-related pain and opioid misuse or OUD. Design, Setting, and Participants: For this qualitative study, using ExpertLens, an online platform and methodology for conducting modified Delphi panels, between August and October 2020, we conducted 2 modified Delphi panels to understand the perspectives of palliative and addiction clinicians on 3 common clinical scenarios varying by prognosis (weeks to months vs months to years). Of the 129 invited palliative or addiction medicine specialists, 120 participated in at least 1 round. A total of 84 participated in all 3 rounds. Main Outcomes and Measures: Consensus was investigated for 3 clinical scenarios: (1) a patient with a history of an untreated opioid use disorder, (2) a patient taking more opioid than prescribed, and (3) a patient using nonprescribed benzodiazepines. Results: Participants were mostly women (47 [62%]), White (94 (78 [65%]), and held MD/DO degrees (115 [96%]). For a patient with untreated OUD, regardless of prognosis, it was deemed appropriate to begin treatment with buprenorphine/naloxone and inappropriate to refer to a methadone clinic. Beginning split-dose methadone was deemed appropriate for patients with shorter prognoses and of uncertain appropriateness for those with longer prognoses. Beginning a full opioid agonist was deemed of uncertain appropriateness for those with a short prognosis and inappropriate for those with a longer prognosis. Regardless of prognosis, for a patient with no medical history of OUD taking more opioids than prescribed, it was deemed appropriate to increase monitoring, inappropriate to taper opioids, and of uncertain appropriateness to increase the patient's opioids or transition to buprenorphine/naloxone. For a patient with a urine drug test positive for non-prescribed benzodiazepines, regardless of prognosis, it was deemed appropriate to increase monitoring, inappropriate to taper opioids and prescribe buprenorphine/naloxone. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this qualitative study provide urgently needed consensus-based guidance for clinicians and highlight critical research and policy gaps.

Framework for opioid stigma in cancer pain.

ABSTRACT: Millions of patients with cancer pain are treated with prescription opioids each year. However, efforts to mitigate the ongoing opioid crisis result in unintended consequences with opioid pain management, including opioid stigma. Emerging research indicates that opioid stigma is problematic in patients with cancer, but few studies have examined contributors to and impacts of opioid stigma in this population. To guide future research in this area, we propose a conceptual framework-the opioid stigma framework (OSF)-with which to understand and improve opioid stigma in patients with cancer pain. Development of the OSF was guided by a literature review of stigma in health-related conditions, adaptation of the existing Health Stigma and Discrimination Framework, a topical review of challenges related to opioid cancer pain management, and author expertise in cancer, pain, and opioid prescribing. The proposed OSF highlights 5 domains: (1) contributors to opioid stigma, or factors that increase the likelihood that a patient will experience opioid stigma; (2) intersecting stigmas, or the convergence of multiple stigmatized identities within a patient; (3) stigma manifestations, or the ways opioid stigma is manifested in patients, clinicians, and the community; (4) proximal outcomes, or the immediate consequences of opioid stigma in patients; and (5) long-term impacts in patients. The OSF provides 2 main avenues to facilitate future research: (1) providing a framework to explore the mechanisms that underlie opioid stigma and its impact on cancer pain management and (2) supporting the development of targeted, tailored interventions to eliminate opioid stigma.

Expert Panel Consensus on Management of Advanced Cancer-Related Pain in Individuals With Opioid Use Disorder.

Importance: Opioid use disorder (OUD) is an important comorbidity in individuals with advanced cancer, in whom pain is common. Full-agonist opioid medications are the cornerstone of cancer pain management, but the existing literature does not address how to manage cancer pain in patients with OUD. Objective: To conduct an expert panel to develop consensus on the appropriateness of management of cancer pain in individuals with co-occurring advanced cancer and OUD. Evidence Review: A 3-round modified Delphi process was completed from August to October 2020 with 2 cases: patient with advanced cancer, pain, and OUD treated with buprenorphine-naloxone or methadone. Participants rated management strategies in round 1, discussed results in round 2, and provided final responses in round 3. ExpertLens, an online approach to conducting modified Delphi panels, was used. Participants were experts in palliative care, addiction, or both, recruited by email from palliative care and addiction-focused professional groups, lists from prior studies, and snowball sampling. Data analysis was performed from November 2020 to July 2021. Findings: Of 120 experts (median age, 40-49 years), most were White (78 participants [94%]), female (74 participants [62%]), and held MD or DO degrees (115 participants [96%]); 84 (70%) participated in all rounds. For a patient with OUD taking buprenorphine-naloxone, it was deemed appropriate to continue buprenorphine-naloxone with thrice-daily dosing. Continuing buprenorphine-naloxone and adding a full-agonist opioid was deemed to be appropriate for patients with a prognosis of weeks to months and of uncertain appropriateness for patients with a prognosis of months to years. For a patient with OUD taking methadone dispensed at a methadone clinic, it was deemed appropriate to take over prescribing and dose twice or thrice daily. Continuing methadone daily while adding another full-agonist opioid was deemed appropriate for patients with a prognosis of weeks to months and of uncertain appropriateness for those with a prognosis of months to years. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this qualitative study provide urgently needed, consensus-based guidance for clinicians and highlight critical research and policy gaps needed to facilitate implementation.

Opioid analgesic use after ambulatory surgery: a descriptive prospective cohort study of factors associated with quantities prescribed and consumed.

OBJECTIVES: To prospectively characterise: (1) postoperative opioid analgesic prescribing practices; (2) experience of patients undergoing elective ambulatory surgeries and (3) impact of patient risk for medication misuse on postoperative pain management. DESIGN: Longitudinal survey of patients 7 days before and 7-14 days after surgery. SETTING: Academic urban safety-net hospital. PARTICIPANTS: 181 participants recruited, 18 surgeons, follow-up data from 149 participants (82% retention); 54% women; mean age: 49 years. INTERVENTIONS: None. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Total morphine equivalent dose (MED) prescribed and consumed, percentage of unused opioids. RESULTS: Surgeons postoperatively prescribed a mean of 242 total MED per patient, equivalent to 32 oxycodone (5 mg) pills. Participants used a mean of 116 MEDs (48%), equivalent to 18 oxycodone (5 mg) pills (~145 mg of oxycodone remaining per patient). A 10-year increase in patient age was associated with 12 (95% CI (-2.05 to -0.35)) total MED fewer prescribed opioids. Each one-point increase in the preoperative Graded Chronic Pain Scale was associated with an 18 (6.84 to 29.60) total MED increase in opioid consumption, and 5% (-0.09% to -0.005%) fewer unused opioids. Prior opioid prescription was associated with a 55 (5.38 to -104.82) total MED increase in opioid consumption, and 19% (-0.35% to -0.02%) fewer unused opioids. High-risk drug use was associated with 9% (-0.19% to 0.002%) fewer unused opioids. Pain severity in previous 3 months, high-risk alcohol, use and prior opioid prescription were not associated with postoperative prescribing practices. CONCLUSIONS: Participants with a preoperative history of chronic pain, prior opioid prescription, and high-risk drug use were more likely to consume higher amounts of opioid medications postoperatively. Additionally, surgeons did not incorporate key patient-level factors (eg, substance use, preoperative pain) into opioid prescribing practices. Opportunities to improve postoperative opioid prescribing include system changes among surgical specialties, and patient education and monitoring.

Exemptions to state laws regulating opioid prescribing for patients with cancer-related pain: A summary.

BACKGROUND: Cancer-related pain is highly prevalent and is commonly treated with prescription opioids. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) now encourages conservative opioid prescribing in recognition of potential opioid-related risks. However, CDC guidelines have been misapplied to patients with cancer. Recent laws at the state level reflect the CDC's guidance by limiting opioid prescribing. It is unclear whether states exempt cancer-related pain, which may affect cancer pain management. Thus, the objective of this study was to summarize current state-level opioid prescribing laws and exemptions for patients with cancer. METHODS: Two study authors reviewed publicly available state records to identify the most recent opioid prescribing laws and cancer-related exemptions. Documents were required to have the force of law and be enacted at the time of the search (November 2020). RESULTS: Results indicated that 36 states had enacted formal legislation limiting the duration and/or dosage of opioid prescriptions, and this was largely focused on acute pain and/or initial prescriptions. Of these states, 32 (89%) explicitly exempted patients with cancer-related pain from opioid prescribing laws. Exemptions were broadly applied, with few states providing specific guidance for cancer-related pain prescribing. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that most states recognize the importance of prescription opioids in cancer-related pain management. However, drafting nuanced and clinically relevant opioid legislation is challenging for a heterogenous population. Additionally, current attempts to regulate opioid prescribing by state law may unintentionally undermine patient-centered approaches to pain management. Additional resources are needed to facilitate clarity at the intersection of opioid-related legislation and clinical management for cancer-related pain. LAY SUMMARY: In this review of state-level legislation, current limitations on opioid prescribing are summarized and detailed information is provided on exemptions for patients with cancer. The majority of states have enacted specific dosage and/or duration limitations on opioid prescribing while including broad exemptions for cancer-related pain. Cancer-related pain exemptions are important to include, as is consistent with national and professional guidelines (eg, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). However, these exemptions may also unintentionally undermine patient-centered approaches to pain management. Additional resources, including specific guidance for patients with cancer, are needed to facilitate clarity at the intersection of opioid-related legislation and clinical pain management. ​.

Improving the Delivery of Chronic Opioid Therapy Among People Living With Human Immunodeficiency Virus: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is prevalent among people living with human immunodeficiency virus (PLWH); managing pain with chronic opioid therapy (COT) is common. Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) providers often diverge from prescribing guidelines. METHODS: This 2-arm, unblinded, cluster-randomized clinical trial assessed whether the Targeting Effective Analgesia in Clinics for HIV (TEACH) intervention improves guideline-concordant care compared to usual care for PLWH on COT. The trial was implemented from 2015 to 2018 with 12-month follow-up at safety-net hospital-based HIV clinics in Boston and Atlanta. We enrolled 41 providers and their 187 patients on COT. Prescribers were randomized 1:1 to either a 12-month intervention consisting of a nurse care manager with an interactive electronic registry, opioid education, academic detailing, and access to addiction specialists or a control condition consisting of usual care. Two primary outcomes were assessed through electronic medical records: ≥2 urine drug tests and any early COT refills by 12 months. Other outcomes included possible adverse consequences. RESULTS: At 12 months, the TEACH intervention arm had higher odds of ≥2 urine drug tests than the usual care arm (71% vs 20%; adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 13.38 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 5.85-30.60]; P < .0001). We did not detect a statistically significant difference in early refills (22% vs 30%; AOR, 0.55 [95% CI, .26-1.15]; P = .11), pain severity (6.30 vs 5.76; adjusted mean difference, 0.10 [95% CI, -1.56 to 1.75]; P = .91), or HIV viral load suppression (86.9% vs 82.1%; AOR, 1.21 [95% CI, .47-3.09]; P = .69). CONCLUSIONS: TEACH is a promising intervention to improve adherence to COT guidelines without evident adverse consequences.

Managing Opioids, Including Misuse and Addiction, in Patients With Serious Illness in Ambulatory Palliative Care: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Pain and opioid management are core ambulatory palliative care skills. Existing literature on how to manage opioid misuse/use disorder excludes patients found in palliative care settings, such as individuals with serious illness or those at the end of life. OBJECTIVES: We conducted an exploratory study to: (1) Identify the challenges palliative care clinicians face when prescribing opioids in ambulatory settings and (2) explore factors that affect opioid decision-making. METHODS: We recruited palliative care clinicians who prescribe opioids in ambulatory settings, which included open-ended questions and was conducted online. Results were analyzed qualitatively using a content analysis-based approach. RESULTS: Eighty-three palliative care clinicians (mostly MDs/DOs) participated. Challenges faced when prescribing opioids included clinician differences in approach to care (eg, transitioning from another clinician with more permissive opioid prescribing), medication access (eg, inadequate pharmacy supply), resource constraints (eg, access to mental health and addiction expertise), managing problems outside the typical palliative care scope (eg addiction). Participants also discussed factors that influenced their opioid prescribing decisions, such as opioid-related harms and risks that they need to weigh; they also spoke about the necessity of considering other factors like the patient's environment, disease, treatment, and prognosis. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the challenge of opioid management in patients with serious illness, particularly when misuse or substance use disorder is present, and suggests areas for future research focus. Our next step will be to establish consensus on approaches to opioid prescribing decision-making and policy in seriously ill patients presenting to ambulatory palliative care.

Marijuana Use Is Not Associated With Changes in Opioid Prescriptions or Pain Severity Among People Living With HIV and Chronic Pain.

BACKGROUND: People living with HIV (PLWH) commonly report marijuana use for chronic pain, although there is limited empirical evidence to support its use. There is hope that marijuana may reduce prescription opioid use. Our objective was to investigate whether marijuana use among PLWH who have chronic pain is associated with changes in pain severity and prescribed opioid use (prescribed opioid initiation and discontinuation). METHODS: Participants completed self-report measures of chronic pain and marijuana use at an index visit and were followed up for 1 year in the Center for AIDS Research Network of Integrated Clinical Systems (CNICS). Self-reported marijuana use was the exposure variable. Outcome variables were changes in pain and initiation or discontinuation of opioids during the study period. The relationship between exposure and outcomes was assessed using generalized linear models for pain and multivariable binary logistic regression models for opioid initiation/discontinuation. RESULTS: Of 433 PLWH and chronic pain, 28% reported marijuana use in the past 3 months. Median pain severity at the index visit was 6.3/10 (interquartile range 4.7-8.0). Neither increases nor decreases in marijuana use were associated with changes in pain severity, and marijuana use was not associated with either lower odds of opioid initiation or higher odds of opioid discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: We did not find evidence that marijuana use in PLWH is associated with improved pain outcomes or reduced opioid prescribing. This suggests that caution is warranted when counseling PLWH about potential benefits of recreational or medical marijuana.

Managing Chronic Pain in Cancer Survivors Prescribed Long-Term Opioid Therapy: A National Survey of Ambulatory Palliative Care Providers.

CONTEXT: Chronic pain, or pain lasting more than three months, is common among cancer survivors, who are often prescribed long-term opioid therapy (LTOT). OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to explore palliative care providers' experiences with managing chronic pain in cancer survivors prescribed LTOT, specifically in ambulatory palliative care settings, and their strategies for overcoming challenges. METHODS: We recruited providers through leading national palliative care organizations who manage chronic pain in cancer survivors. Asked to consider only cancer survivors with chronic pain when responding, participants completed an online survey that included questions about use of opioid risk mitigation tools, confidence in addressing opioid misuse behaviors and discussing/recommending management approaches, and access to addiction treatment. RESULTS: Of 157 participants, most were physicians (83%) or nurse practitioners (15%). Most reported using opioid risk mitigation tools such as urine drug testing (71%), opioid treatment agreements (85%), and practitioner database monitoring programs (94%). Participants were confident (7-8/10) managing the most commonly encountered opioid misuse behaviors (missing appointments, marijuana use, and using more opioids than prescribed) and in their ability to recommend nonpharmacologic and nonopioid pharmacologic treatments for chronic pain (10/10). They were least confident prescribing naloxone or managing addiction (5/10); only 27% reported having training or systems in place to address addiction. Only 13% had a waiver to prescribe buprenorphine. CONCLUSION: Palliative care providers are comfortable with many aspects of managing chronic pain in cancer survivors on LTOT, although challenges persist, including the lack of systems-based approaches and training in addiction treatment.

Medication for Opioid Use Disorder After Nonfatal Opioid Overdose and Association With Mortality: A Cohort Study.

Background: Opioid overdose survivors have an increased risk for death. Whether use of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) after overdose is associated with mortality is not known. Objective: To identify MOUD use after opioid overdose and its association with all-cause and opioid-related mortality. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: 7 individually linked data sets from Massachusetts government agencies. Participants: 17 568 Massachusetts adults without cancer who survived an opioid overdose between 2012 and 2014. Measurements: Three types of MOUD were examined: methadone maintenance treatment (MMT), buprenorphine, and naltrexone. Exposure to MOUD was identified at monthly intervals, and persons were considered exposed through the month after last receipt. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was used to examine MOUD as a monthly time-varying exposure variable to predict time to all-cause and opioid-related mortality. Results: In the 12 months after a nonfatal overdose, 2040 persons (11%) enrolled in MMT for a median of 5 months (interquartile range, 2 to 9 months), 3022 persons (17%) received buprenorphine for a median of 4 months (interquartile range, 2 to 8 months), and 1099 persons (6%) received naltrexone for a median of 1 month (interquartile range, 1 to 2 months). Among the entire cohort, all-cause mortality was 4.7 deaths (95% CI, 4.4 to 5.0 deaths) per 100 person-years and opioid-related mortality was 2.1 deaths (CI, 1.9 to 2.4 deaths) per 100 person-years. Compared with no MOUD, MMT was associated with decreased all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 0.47 [CI, 0.32 to 0.71]) and opioid-related mortality (AHR, 0.41 [CI, 0.24 to 0.70]). Buprenorphine was associated with decreased all-cause mortality (AHR, 0.63 [CI, 0.46 to 0.87]) and opioid-related mortality (AHR, 0.62 [CI, 0.41 to 0.92]). No associations between naltrexone and all-cause mortality (AHR, 1.44 [CI, 0.84 to 2.46]) or opioid-related mortality (AHR, 1.42 [CI, 0.73 to 2.79]) were identified. Limitation: Few events among naltrexone recipients preclude confident conclusions. Conclusion: A minority of opioid overdose survivors received MOUD. Buprenorphine and MMT were associated with reduced all-cause and opioid-related mortality. Primary Funding Source: National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health.

Intrauterine exposure to tobacco and executive functioning in high school.

BACKGROUND: Executive functioning (EF), an umbrella construct encompassing gradual maturation of cognitive organization/management processes, is important to success in multiple settings including high school. Intrauterine tobacco exposure (IUTE) correlates with negative cognitive/behavioral outcomes, but little is known about its association with adolescent EF and information from real-life contexts is sparse. We evaluated the impact of IUTE on teacher-reported observations of EF in urban high school students controlling for covariates including other intrauterine and adolescent substance exposures. METHODS: A prospective low-income birth cohort (51% male; 89% African American/Caribbean) was followed through late adolescence (16-18 years old). At birth, intrauterine exposures to cocaine and other substances (52% cocaine, 52% tobacco, 26% marijuana, 26% alcohol) were identified by meconium and/or urine assays, and/or maternal self-report. High school teachers knowledgeable about the student and unaware of study aims were asked to complete the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Functioning-Teacher Form (BRIEF-TF) annually. RESULTS: Teachers completed at least one BRIEF-TF for 131 adolescents. Multivariable analyses included controls for: demographics; intrauterine cocaine, marijuana, and alcohol exposures; early childhood exposures to lead; and violence exposure from school-age to adolescence. IUTE was associated with less optimal BRIEF-TF Behavioral Regulation scores (p <0.05). Other intrauterine substance exposures did not predict less optimal BRIEF-TF scores, nor did exposures to violence, lead, nor adolescents' own substance use. CONCLUSIONS: IUTE is associated with offspring's less optimal EF. Prenatal counseling should emphasize abstinence from tobacco, as well as alcohol and illegal substances.

Management of problematic behaviours among individuals on long-term opioid therapy: protocol for a Delphi study.

INTRODUCTION: Given the sharp rise in opioid prescribing and heightened recognition of opioid addiction and overdose, opioid safety has become a priority. Clinical guidelines on long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) for chronic pain consistently recommend routine monitoring and screening for problematic behaviours. Yet, there is no consensus definition regarding what constitutes a problematic behaviour, and recommendations for appropriate management to inform front-line providers, researchers and policymakers are lacking. This creates a barrier to effective guideline implementation. Thus, our objective is to present the protocol for a Delphi study designed to: (1) elicit expert opinion to identify the most important problematic behaviours seen in clinical practice and (2) develop consensus on how these behaviours should be managed in the context of routine clinical care. METHODS/ANALYSIS: We will include clinical experts, defined as individuals who provide direct patient care to adults with chronic pain who are on LTOT in an ambulatory setting, and for whom opioid prescribing for chronic non-malignant pain is an area of expertise. The Delphi study will be conducted online in 4 consecutive rounds. Participants will be asked to list problematic behaviours and identify which behaviours are most common and challenging. They will then describe how they would manage the most frequently occurring common and challenging behaviours, rating the importance of each management strategy. Qualitative analysis will be used to categorise behaviours and management strategies, and consensus will be based on a definition established a priori. ETHICS/DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). This study will generate Delphi-based expert consensus on the management of problematic behaviours that arise in individuals on LTOT, which we will publish and disseminate to appropriate professional societies. Ultimately, our findings will provide guidance to front-line providers, researchers and policymakers.