Misuse of Prescribed and Nonprescribed Substances Among U.S. Cancer Survivors.

BACKGROUND: Substance misuse is common among cancer survivors and can negatively impact cancer outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study using National Survey on Drug Use and Health data for 2015 to 2020. We included adult respondents with a history of solid tumor cancer. We calculated the weighted prevalence and corresponding SEs (both expressed as percentages) of substance (alcohol, opioid, sedative, stimulant, other) misuse for respondents with any history of solid tumor cancer and, in secondary analyses, respondents diagnosed with cancer in the prior 12 months. RESULTS: The study included 6,101 respondents with any history of cancer, 1,437 diagnosed in the prior 12 months. Alcohol was the most commonly misused substance. The average prevalence of alcohol misuse was 14.4% (SE 0.60%) across cancer types; it was markedly more common among people with a history or cervical (24.2% [3.0%]) or head and neck cancer (27.4% [7.1%]). The next most common form of substance misuse was opioid misuse (average prevalence: 2.7% [0.25%]). As with alcohol misuse, the prevalence of opioid misuse was higher among those with a lifetime history of cervical cancer (5% [1%]) or head and neck cancer (5% [3%]). Results were generally consistent among cancer survivors diagnosed in the prior 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: There is a clear opportunity to address substance misuse-particularly alcohol misuse-among cancer survivors. Such efforts should focus on populations with a high prevalence of substance misuse (e.g., cervical and head and neck cancer survivors) and have strong potential to improve cancer-specific and overall health outcomes.

A Longitudinal Multivariable Analysis: State Policies and Opioid Dispensing in Medicare Beneficiaries Undergoing Surgery.

BACKGROUND: States have implemented policies to decrease clinically unnecessary opioid prescribing, but few studies have examined how state policies affect opioid dispensing rate trends for surgical patients. OBJECTIVE: To examine trends in the perioperative opioid dispensing rates for fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries and the effects of select state policies. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective cohort study using 2006 to 2018 Medicare claims data for individuals undergoing surgical procedures for which opioid analgesic treatment is common. EXPOSURES: State policies mandating prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP; PDMP policies) use, initial opioid prescription duration limit (duration limit policies), and mandated continuing medical education (CME; CME pain policies) on pain management. MAIN MEASURES: Opioid dispensing rates, days' supply, and the daily morphine milligram equivalent dose (MMED). KEY RESULTS: The percentage of Medicare beneficiaries dispensed opioids in the perioperative period increased from 2007 to 2018; MMED and days' supply decreased over the same period, with significant variation by age, sex, and race. None of the three state policies affected the likelihood of Medicare beneficiaries being dispensed perioperative opioids. However, CME pain policies and duration limit policies were associated with decreased days' supply and decreased MMED in the several years following implementation, respectively. CONCLUSION: While we observed a slight increase in the rate of Medicare beneficiaries dispensed opioids perioperatively and a substantial decrease in MMED and days' supply for those receiving opioids, state policies examined had relatively modest effects on the main measures. Our findings suggest that these state policies may have a limited impact on opioid dispensing for a patient population that is commonly dispensed opioid analgesics to help control surgical pain, and as a result may have little direct effect on clinical outcomes for this population. Changes in opioid dispensing for this population may be the result of broader societal trends than such state policies.

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.

Substance Use Disorders Among US Adult Cancer Survivors.

Importance: Some individuals are predisposed to cancer based on their substance use history, and others may use substances to manage cancer-related symptoms. Yet the intersection of substance use disorder (SUD) and cancer is understudied. Because SUD may affect and be affected by cancer care, it is important to identify cancer populations with a high prevalence of SUD, with the goal of guiding attention and resources toward groups and settings where interventions may be needed. Objective: To describe the cancer type-specific prevalence of SUD among adult cancer survivors. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used data from the annually administered National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) for 2015 through 2020 to identify adults with a history of solid tumor cancer. Substance use disorder was defined as meeting at least 1 of 4 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition) criteria for abuse or at least 3 of 6 criteria for dependence. Main Outcomes and Measures: Per NSDUH guidelines, we made adjustments to analysis weights by dividing weights provided in the pooled NSDUH data sets by the number of years of combined data (eg, 6 for 2015-2020). The weighted prevalence and corresponding SEs (both expressed as percentages) of active SUD (ie, within the past 12 months) were calculated for respondents with any lifetime history of cancer and, in secondary analyses, respondents diagnosed with cancer within 12 months prior to taking the survey. Data were analyzed from July 2022 to June 2023. Results: This study included data from 6101 adult cancer survivors (56.91% were aged 65 years or older and 61.63% were female). Among lifetime cancer survivors, the prevalence of active SUD was 3.83% (SE, 0.32%). Substance use disorder was most prevalent in survivors of head and neck cancer (including mouth, tongue, lip, throat, and pharyngeal cancers; 9.36% [SE, 2.47%]), esophageal and gastric cancer (9.42% [SE, 5.51%]), cervical cancer (6.24% [SE, 1.41%]), and melanoma (6.20% [SE, 1.34%]). Alcohol use disorder was the most common SUD (2.78% [SE, 0.26%]) overall and in survivors of head and neck cancer, cervical cancer, and melanoma. In survivors of esophageal and gastric cancers, cannabis use disorder was the most prevalent SUD (9.42% [SE, 5.51%]). Among respondents diagnosed with cancer in the past 12 months, the overall prevalence of active SUD was similar to that in the lifetime cancer survivor cohort (3.81% [SE, 0.74%]). However, active SUD prevalence was higher in head and neck (18.73% [SE, 10.56%]) and cervical cancer survivors (15.70% [SE, 5.35%]). The distribution of specific SUDs was different compared with that in the lifetime cancer survivor cohort. For example, in recently diagnosed head and neck cancer survivors, sedative use disorder was the most common SUD (9.81% [SE, 9.17%]). Conclusions and Relevance: Findings of this study suggest that SUD prevalence is higher among survivors of certain types of cancer; this information could be used to identify cancer survivors who may benefit from integrated cancer and SUD care. Future efforts to understand and address the needs of adult cancer survivors with comorbid SUD should prioritize cancer populations in which SUD prevalence is high.

Nicotine Metabolite Ratio Decreases After Switching Off Efavirenz-Based Therapy in People With HIV Who Smoke.

Rates of cigarette smoking in people with HIV (PWH) are two to three times higher than in people without HIV. Nicotine is metabolized by CYP2A6 and the nicotine metabolite ratio (NMR; 3-hydroxycotinine/cotinine) is a measure of nicotine clearance. Higher NMR has been observed in PWH and is associated with lower quit rates. Efavirenz, a mainstay antiretroviral therapy (ART) globally, partially upregulates its own metabolism through CYP2A6. We hypothesized that efavirenz also upregulates nicotine metabolism by CYP2A6, resulting in a higher NMR, and switching to non-efavirenz ART would decrease the NMR, potentially leading to improved quit rates. We compared the NMR during and after efavirenz use among PWH in a longitudinal, multisite cohort. Eligibility criteria included: (i) active cigarette smoking, (ii) ART switched from efavirenz-based to non-efavirenz-based regimen, (iii) plasma available at pre- and post-ART switch, and (iv) viral suppression during study period. Plasma cotinine and 3-hydroxycotinine were measured by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. T-tests compared the NMR on and off efavirenz. Samples were collected between 2010 and 2019 in 72 PWH. The mean NMR difference after switching to a non-efavirenz-based regimen was -0.24 (SD: 0.37, P < 0.001); 44 PWH had at least a 0.1 decrease in NMR. Effect modification by race was present; Black PWH had a larger mean decrease. Our findings suggest that previously observed higher NMR among PWH may be due to direct pharmacologic effects of ART. Assessing the effect of ART on the NMR suggests that avoiding nicotine metabolism inducers could potentially increase quit rates.

Managing Chronic Pain in Cancer Survivorship: Communication Challenges and Opportunities as Described by Cancer Survivors.

OBJECTIVES: Many cancer survivors experience chronic pain after completing curative-intent treatment. Based on available data, chronic pain may be undertreated in this context; however, little is known about cancer survivors' experiences with clinical management of chronic pain. The purpose of this study was to better understand cancer survivors' pain management experiences after curative-intent treatment. METHODS: We conducted 13 semi-structured interviews with a convenience sample of cancer survivors who had completed treatment for stage I-III breast, head/neck, lung or colorectal cancer. We used a thematic approach to qualitative data analysis. RESULTS: Participants described that chronic pain often goes unrecognized by their providers, potentially due to limitations in how pain is assessed clinically and the tendency of both cancer survivors and providers to minimize or invalidate the pain experience. To improve communication, participants suggested that providers ask more open-ended questions about their pain, help them to establish functional goals, and provide patients with options for pain management. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: This study demonstrates the importance of provider-initiated communication around pain management for cancer survivors to make them feel more supported in their care. Communication and shared decision-making interventions may improve cancer survivor-provider communication around chronic pain management, addressing an important gap in survivorship care.

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.

Prevalence of opioid and nonopioid pain management therapies among Medicare beneficiaries with musculoskeletal pain conditions from 2016 to 2019.

INTRODUCTION: Pain treatment guidelines prioritize nonopioid therapies over opioid medications to prevent opioid-related harms. We examined trends in receipt and intensity of nonpharmacologic, nonopioid medication, and opioid therapies among Medicare beneficiaries. METHODS: Using a 20% national random sample of Medicare data from 2016 to 2019, we identified fee-for-service beneficiaries with ≥2 diagnoses of back, neck, fibromyalgia, or osteoarthritis/joint pain annually. We excluded beneficiaries with cancer. We calculated annual proportions of beneficiaries who received physical therapy (PT), chiropractic care, gabapentin, and opioids, overall and in demographic, geographic, and clinical subgroups. We estimated the intensity of therapies using the annual number of visitsor prescription fills, prescription days' supply, and opioid dose. RESULTS: During 2016-2019, PT receipt increased (22.8% to 25.5%) and the mean number of visits among recipients of PT went from 12 to 13. Chiropractic receipt (~18%) and mean annual visits (~10) remained unchanged. The prevalence of gabapentin receipt was stable at ~22% and the mean annual number of fills was unchanged though gabapentin days increased slightly. Opioid prescribing decreased (56.7% to 46.5%) and reductions in opioid dose and duration were observed. Opioid receipt was high among beneficiaries who were under 65 years, American Indian/Alaska Native, Black/African American, or had opioid use disorder (OUD), in whom nonpharmacologic therapies were also received the least. CONCLUSION: Utilization of nonopioid therapies lagged opioids among Medicare beneficiaries with musculoskeletal pain, with limited changes from 2016 to 2019. As opioid prescribing declines and alternative pain therapy receipt remains low, there are potential increasing risks of pain going untreated or undertreated and individuals seeking illicit opioids to alleviate their pain.

"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.

Clinician Perspectives on Managing Chronic Pain After Curative-Intent Cancer Treatment.

PURPOSE: Among cancer survivors who have completed curative-intent treatment, the high prevalence and adverse consequences of chronic pain are well documented. Yet, research on clinicians' experiences with and perspectives on managing chronic pain among cancer survivors is critically lacking. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with 17 clinicians (six oncology, three palliative care, and eight primary care) affiliated with an academic medical center. Interview questions addressed clinicians' experiences with and perspectives on managing chronic pain (with or without opioid therapy) during the transition from active treatment to survivorship. A multidisciplinary team conducted content analysis of interview transcripts to identify and refine themes related to current practices and challenges in managing chronic pain in this context. RESULTS: Overall, clinicians perceived chronic pain to be relatively uncommon among cancer survivors. Identified challenges included a lack of clarity about which clinician (or clinicians) are best positioned to manage chronic pain among cancer survivors, and (relatedly) complexities introduced by long-term opioid management, with many clinicians describing this practice as outside their skill set. Additionally, although most clinicians recognized chronic pain as a biopsychosocial phenomenon, they described challenges with effectively managing psychosocial stressors, including difficulty accessing mental or behavioral health services for cancer survivors. CONCLUSION: Discovered challenges highlight unmet needs related to cancer survivor-clinician communication about chronic pain and the absence of a chronic pain management home for cancer survivors, including those requiring long-term opioid therapy. Research evaluating routine pain monitoring and accessible, tailored models of multimodal pain care in survivorship may help to address these challenges.

Opioid-prescribing considerations in patients with cancer and substance misuse or substance use disorder: a scoping review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aims to describe factors in the existing literature that may inform opioid-prescribing decisions for patients with a past or present history of cancer and past or present substance misuse or substance use disorder. INTRODUCTION: Opioids and opioid-related decisions are critical components of cancer care. Most individuals with cancer will experience pain during cancer care, and over half of patients will receive an opioid prescription. Opioid-prescribing decisions require weighing the benefits and harms. The presence of substance misuse or substance use disorder may elevate the risk of opioid-related harms, but there is a lack of consensus on managing patients at this intersection. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will consider studies that include adult patients with a past or present history of cancer who also have pain and current or historical substance misuse or substance use disorder. The pain may be cancer-related or non-cancer-related. Studies of patients with all types of cancer will be eligible for inclusion, with the exception of non-melanoma skin cancers. Eligible studies will explore factors that inform opioid-prescribing decisions in this patient population. METHODS: The review will be conducted according to JBI methodology for scoping reviews. Studies written in English since database inception will be included. The databases to be searched include MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), Embase, APA PsycINFO, and Google Scholar. Eligible studies will undergo data extraction by 2 independent reviewers using a data extraction tool created by the authors. A narrative summary will describe study characteristics, population details, and strategies used to determine appropriate pain management in the patient population.

Top Ten Tips Palliative Care Clinicians Should Know About Buprenorphine.

Pain management in palliative care (PC) is becoming more complex as patients survive longer with life-limiting illnesses and population-wide trends involving opioid misuse become more common in serious illness. Buprenorphine, a generally safe partial mu-opioid receptor agonist, has been shown to be effective for both pain management and opioid use disorder. It is critical that PC clinicians become comfortable with indications for its use, strategies for initiation while understanding risks and benefits. This article, written by a team of PC and addiction-trained specialists, including physicians, nurse practitioners, social workers, and a pharmacist, offers 10 tips to demystify buprenorphine use in serious illness.

Long-term opioid therapy trajectories and overdose in patients with and without cancer.

Objective: Pain is experienced by most patients with cancer and opioids are a cornerstone of management. Our objectives were (1) to identify patterns or trajectories of long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) and their correlates among patients with and without cancer and (2) to assess the association between trajectories and risk for opioid overdose, considering the potential moderating role of cancer. Methods and Analysis: We conducted a retrospective cohort study among individuals in the US Veterans Health Administration (VHA) database with incident LTOT with and without cancer (N=44,351; N=285,772, respectively) between 2010-2017. We investigated the relationship between LTOT trajectory and all International Classification of Diseases-9 and 10-defined accidental and intentional opioid-related overdoses. Results: Trajectories of opioid receipt observed in patients without cancer and replicated in patients with cancer were: low-dose/stable trend, low-dose/de-escalating trend, moderate-dose/stable trend, moderate-dose/escalating with quadratic downturn trend, and high-dose/escalating with quadratic downturn trend. Time to first overdose was significantly predicted by higher-dose and escalating trajectories; the two low-dose trajectories conferred similar, lower risk. Conditional hazard ratios (99% CI) for the moderate-dose, moderate-dose/escalating with quadratic downturn and high-dose/escalating with quadratic downturn trends were 1·84 (1·18, 2·85), 2·56 (1·54, 4·25), and 2·41 (1·37, 4·26), respectively. Effects of trajectories on time to overdose did not differ by presence of cancer; inferences were replicated when restricting to patients with stage 3/4 cancer. Conclusion: Patients with cancer face opioid overdose risks like patients without cancer. Future studies should seek to expand and address our knowledge about opioid risk in cancer patients. Trial registration: None.

Concurrent prescribing of opioids with other sedating medications after cancer diagnosis: a population-level analysis.

PURPOSE: Cancer is a major reason for concurrent prescription of opioids with other sedating medications-particularly benzodiazepines and gabapentinoids-yet population-based assessments of the extent and predictors of concurrent prescribing among clinically and demographically diverse patients with cancer are lacking. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with non-metastatic cancer using North Carolina cancer registry data linked with Medicare and private insurance claims (2013-2016). We used modified Poisson regression to assess associations of patient characteristic with adjusted relative risk (aRR) of new concurrent prescribing of opioids with benzodiazepines or gabapentinoids after diagnosis. RESULTS: Overall, 15% of patients were concurrently prescribed opioids with benzodiazepines or gabapentinoids. Characteristics independently associated with an increased risk of concurrent prescribing included cancer type (e.g., aRR cervical vs. colorectal cancer: 1.55, 95% CI: 1.12-2.14); prior use of opioids (aRR: 2.43, 95% CI:2.21-2.67), benzodiazepines (aRR: 4.08, 95% CI: 3.72-4.48), or gabapentinoids (3.82, 95% CI: 3.31-4.39), and premorbid mental health conditions, including substance use disorder (aRR: 1.27, 95% CI: 1.05-1.54). Black and Hispanic patients were less likely to experience concurrent prescribing (aRR, Black vs. White: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.15-0.83; aRR, Hispanic vs. White: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.66-0.85). CONCLUSION: Approximately 1 in 7 patients with cancer was concurrently prescribed opioids with other sedating medications. Associations between patient characteristics and risk of concurrent prescribing highlight predictors of concurrent prescribing and suggest a rationale for systematic assessment of substance use history at diagnosis. Future research could explore inequitable pain and symptom management and investigate risk of adverse medication-related events.

Nonpharmacologic management of chronic pain in the United States' Medicare population: a scoping review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: This objective of this review is to describe the scope of the literature on the access to and use of nonpharmacologic therapies to manage chronic pain among people with disabilities and older adults. INTRODUCTION: Clinical guidelines recommend nonpharmacologic interventions as first-line therapy for chronic pain management. The importance of nonpharmacologic management is magnified in populations with a high pain burden and multiple chronic conditions, such as people living with a disability and/or older adults, many of whom are enrolled in Medicare. Understanding the utilization of nonpharmacologic therapies for pain is critical to guide effective pain management delivery and policy. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This scoping review will consider studies of Medicare beneficiaries and Medicare-eligible individuals who have chronic pain. Noninvasive and nonpharmacologic treatments for pain identified in clinical guidelines will be included. We will exclude studies exclusively focused on acute pain, cancer pain, palliative care and hospice settings, cannabis-based treatment, and pharmacologic therapies. Studies conducted outside the United States will be excluded. METHODS: The proposed scoping review will be conducted in accordance with JBI methodology. The search strategy has been developed in consultation with a public health librarian and will be carried out in MEDLINE, CINAHL, and SocINDEX, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. The search will be limited to results published in English since January 1, 1990. Two independent reviewers will screen all titles and abstracts and then full-text articles. Data will be extracted and summarized in diagrammatic, tabular, and narrative formats. SCOPING REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/h7bwc/ ).

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.

The Relevance of State Laws Regulating Opioid Prescribing for People Living With Serious Illness.

CONTEXT: Opioids are commonly used to relieve symptoms such as pain and dyspnea in people living with serious illness. In recent years, 36 states enacted limitations for opioid prescriptions to mitigate the impact of the opioid overdose crisis. Palliative care clinicians have been vocal about the unintended consequences of opioid policies, yet little is known about how state policies apply to opioid prescribing in non-cancer-related serious illness. OBJECTIVE: To summarize current state-level limitations to opioid prescribing and exemptions relevant to people living with non-cancer-related serious illness. METHODS: Investigators searched publicly available laws ("[state] + opioid legislation") to extract information on opioid prescribing and exemptions. Laws were examined for application to palliative care, hospice, non-cancer-related serious illness, and language about specific symptoms was documented when applicable (e.g., pain, dyspnea). RESULTS: Most state laws focused on acute pain and/or initial opioid prescriptions. Thirty-three of the thirty-six states with opioid-limiting legislation exempt situations applicable to people living with non-cancer-related serious illness. Three states did not have any exemptions relevant to people living with non-cancer-related serious illness. DISCUSSION: The results indicate that while most states recognize the importance of timely opioid access for palliation of pain, clinically relevant exemptions for people living with non-cancer-related serious illness may be lacking. When present, language describing palliative care, hospice, and terminal illness exemptions is often broad and may generate confusion between primary and specialty palliative care.

Barriers to Buprenorphine Prescribing for Opioid Use Disorder in Hospice and Palliative Care.

CONTEXT: Hospice and palliative care (HPC) clinicians increasingly care for patients with concurrent painful serious illness and opioid use disorder (OUD) or opioid misuse; however, only a minority of HPC clinicians have an X-waiver license or actively use it to prescribe buprenorphine as medication treatment for OUD. OBJECTIVES: To understand barriers for HPC clinicians to obtaining an X-waiver and prescribing buprenorphine as medication treatment for OUD. METHODS: We performed content analysis on 100 survey responses from members of the national Buprenorphine Peer Support Network, a group of HPC clinicians interested in buprenorphine, on X-waiver status, barriers to obtaining an X-waiver, and barriers to active prescribing. RESULTS: Of 100 HPC clinicians surveyed, only 26 of 57 HPC clinicians with X-waivers had ever prescribed. Prominent barriers included discomfort managing concurrent pain, buprenorphine, and OUD; concerns about impacts on practice; unsupportive practice culture; insufficient practice support; patient facing challenges; and cumbersome regulatory policies. CONCLUSION: Despite HPC clinicians' interest in buprenorphine prescribing for OUD, several steps are needed to facilitate the practice, including clinician education tailored to pain and to clinical challenges faced by HPC clinicians, mentorship on buprenorphine use, and cultural and practice changes to dismantle systemic stigma towards addiction. We propose evidence-based steps derived from our survey findings that individual clinicians, HPC leaders, and national HPC organizations can take to improve care for patients with painful serious illness and OUD.