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

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

Adherence to prescription opioid monitoring guidelines among residents and attending physicians in the primary care setting.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare adherence to opioid prescribing guidelines and potential opioid misuse in patients of resident vs attending physicians. DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional study. SETTING: Large primary care practice at a safety net hospital in New England. SUBJECTS: Patients 18-89 years old, with at least one visit to the primary care clinic within the past year and were prescribed long-term opioid treatment for chronic noncancer pain. METHODS: Data were abstracted from the electronic medical record by a trained data analyst through a clinical data warehouse. The primary outcomes were adherence to any one of two American Pain Society Guidelines: (1) documentation of at least one opioid agreement (contract) ever and (2) any urine drug testing in the past year, and evidence of potential prescription misuse defined as ≥2 early refills. We employed logistic regression analysis to assess whether patients' physician status predicts guideline adherence and/or potential opioid misuse. RESULTS: Similar proportions of resident and attending patients had a controlled substance agreement (45.1% of resident patients vs. 42.4% of attending patient, P = 0.47) or urine drug testing (58.6% of resident patients vs. 63.6% of attending patients, P = 0.16). Resident patients were more likely to have two or more early refills in the past year relative to attending patients (42.8% vs. 32.5%; P = 0.004). In the adjusted regression analysis, resident patients were more likely to receive early refills (odds ratio 1.82, 95% confidence interval 1.26-2.62) than attending patients. CONCLUSIONS: With some variability, residents and attending physicians were only partly compliant with national guidelines. Residents were more likely to manage patients with a higher likelihood of opioid misuse.

Low-dose buprenorphine initiation and treatment continuation among hospitalized patients with opioid dependence: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Buprenorphine is an effective treatment for both opioid use disorder (OUD) and chronic pain, but buprenorphine's pharmacology complicates treatment initiation for some patients. Low-dose buprenorphine initiation is a novel strategy that may reduce precipitated withdrawal. Few studies describe what patient populations benefit most from low-dose initiations and the clinical parameters that impact treatment continuation. This study aimed to 1) describe experiences with low-dose buprenorphine initiation, including both successes and failures among hospitalized patients in an urban underserved community; 2) identify patient- and treatment-related characteristics associated with unsuccessful initiation and treatment discontinuation; and 3) assess buprenorphine treatment continuation after discharge. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study with opioid-dependent (meaning OUD or receiving long-term opioid therapy for chronic pain) patients who underwent low-dose buprenorphine initiation during hospital admission from October 2021 through April 2022. The primary outcome was successful completion of low-dose initiation. Bivariate analysis identified patient- and treatment-related factors associated with unsuccessful initiation. Secondary outcomes were buprenorphine treatment discontinuation at post-discharge follow-up, 30- and 90-days. RESULTS: Of 28 patients who underwent low-dose buprenorphine initiation, 68 % successfully completed initiation. Unsuccessful initiation was associated with receipt of methadone during admission and higher morphine milligram equivalents (MME) of supplemental opioids. Of 22 patients with OUD, the percent receiving a buprenorphine prescription at a follow-up visit, 30 days, and 90 days, respectively, was 46 %, 36 %, and 36 %. Of 6 patients with chronic pain, the percent receiving a buprenorphine prescription at a follow-up visit, 30 days, and 90 days, respectively, was 100 %, 100 %, and 83 %. CONCLUSION: Low-dose buprenorphine initiation can be successful in opioid-dependent hospitalized patients. Patients taking methadone or requiring higher MME of supplemental opioids may have more difficulty with the low-dose buprenorphine initiation approach, but these findings should be replicated in larger studies. This study suggests patient- and treatment-related factors that clinicians could consider when determining the optimal treatment strategy for patients wishing to transition to buprenorphine.

Changes in Outpatient Opioid Prescribing During the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Interrupted Time Series Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Changes in health care delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic may have impacted opioid prescribing. This study evaluated the impact of restrictions on in-person care on opioid prescribing in the outpatient setting. The hypothesis was that after restrictions to in-person care were implemented, there would be a reduction in the number of chronic and non-chronic opioid prescriptions. METHODS: An interrupted time series analysis was conducted to compare the number of weekly opioid prescriptions between baseline (1/1/2019-3/14/2020), restriction (3/15/2020-6/6/2020), and reopening (6/7/2020-10/31/2020) periods at outpatient practices within a health system in Bronx, NY. Analyses were stratified by prescription type (chronic if the patient had been prescribed opioids for >90 days, or non-chronic). RESULTS: For chronic opioid prescriptions, the week restrictions were implemented, there was an increase in the number of prescriptions compared to what was predicted if there had been no interruption (34.8 prescriptions, 95% CI: 8.0, 61.7). Subsequently, the weekly trend in prescribing was not different in the restriction period or in the reopening period compared to the previous time periods. For non-chronic opioid prescriptions, during the restriction period, the weekly trend in prescribing decreased compared to baseline (-5.0 prescriptions/week, 95% CI: -9.0, -1.0). Subsequently, during the reopening period, the weekly trend in prescribing increased compared to the restriction period (6.4 prescriptions/week, 95% CI: 2.2, 10.7). CONCLUSIONS: Despite abrupt restrictions on in-person care, chronic opioid prescriptions did not decrease, which is evidence that providers evolved to meet patient needs. Changes in non-chronic prescriptions are likely related to patients electing not to pursue care for acute pain or challenges with appointment availability.

Cascade of care for office-based buprenorphine treatment in Bronx community clinics.

INTRODUCTION: The cascade of care for opioid use disorder (OUD) has been described at the population level to inform health policy and in health care systems, programs, and communities to guide targeted interventions. Office-based buprenorphine treatment is essential for expanding access to OUD treatment; however, few studies examine the cascade of care specifically for office-based buprenorphine treatment. Our objective was to describe a cascade of care for patients referred for office-based buprenorphine treatment in the primary care setting. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with OUD who were referred for office-based buprenorphine treatment within a large, urban health care system between 2018 and 2019. Our primary outcomes included completion of each step of the buprenorphine treatment cascade of care: 1) referred for treatment, 2) scheduled initial visit, 3) completed initial visit, 4) initiated buprenorphine treatment, and 5) retained in treatment at 90 days. We constructed a cascade of care by calculating proportions of patients identified at every step, starting with the total number of patients referred for treatment as the first step. We extracted data from the program's referral database and electronic medical record system. We compared characteristics of patients referred who initiated buprenorphine to those referred who did not initiate buprenorphine treatment using chi-squared tests and t-tests. To account for the hierarchical nature of the data, we conducted a Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) modeling to test the differences in attrition rates among the steps of the cascade of care. RESULTS: In the 24-month period between 2018 and 2019, 226 patients were referred for office-based buprenorphine treatment at Montefiore's Buprenorphine Treatment Network. Patients' mean age at referral was 47 years, and most were male (68.6%), Hispanic (49.6%), and publicly insured (75.7%). Among all patients, 182 (80.5%) were scheduled for an initial visit, 142 (62.8%) completed the initial visit, 134 (59.3%) initiated buprenorphine treatment, and 95 (42.0%) were retained in treatment at 90 days. 37.2% of all patients referred did not complete the initial visit. A GEE model showed that attrition is significantly steeper in the first two steps of the cascade of care, compared to the later three steps (AOR = 1.95, 95% CI = 1.31-2.91, p < 0.05). Compared to referred patients who did not initiate treatment, those referred who initiated treatment were more likely to be using non-prescribed buprenorphine at time of referral (19.4% vs. 5.4%, p < 0.05) and be self-referred (22.4% vs. 9.8%, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Our study is the first to describe a cascade of care for office-based buprenorphine treatment in a large health care system. The study observed the steepest attrition in the first two steps of the cascade of care, where more than a third of patients referred did not complete the initial visit. Patients who were self-referred, or using non-prescribed buprenorphine were more likely to initiate treatment. A cascade of care specific for office-based buprenorphine can inform future efforts to improve linkage to care.

A comparison of office-based buprenorphine treatment outcomes in Bronx community clinics before versus during the COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: In 2020, the US and New York City experienced unprecedented deaths due to the COVID-19 pandemic and drug overdoses. Policy changes reduced burdensome regulations for medication treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD). Despite these policy changes, few studies examined buprenorphine treatment outcomes during the pandemic. We compared treatment outcomes among Bronx patients referred to office-based buprenorphine treatment before versus during the pandemic. METHODS: In a retrospective cohort study, we compared patients referred to buprenorphine treatment in a Bronx community clinic before (March-August 2019) versus during (March-August 2020) the pandemic. We describe changes to buprenorphine treatment during the pandemic, including telehealth and prioritizing harm reduction. Using data from medical records and program logs, main outcomes included steps of the OUD treatment cascade of care-initial visit scheduled and completed, treatment initiated, and retained in treatment at 90 days. Using chi square and t-tests, we examined differences in patient characteristics and OUD treatment cascade steps before versus during the pandemic. RESULTS: Before and during the pandemic, 72 and 35 patients were referred to buprenorphine treatment, respectively. Patients' mean age was 46 years, most were male (67.3%) or Hispanic (52.3%), and few had private insurance (19.6%). Patients referred during (vs. before) the pandemic were more likely to have private insurance (31.4% vs. 13.9%, p < 0.05) and be referred from acute care settings (37.1% vs. 19.4%, p < 0.05). No significant differences in OUD cascade of care outcomes existed between those referred during versus before the pandemic. However, among patients who initiated buprenorphine treatment, those referred during (vs. before) the pandemic were more likely to be retained in treatment at 90 days (68.0% vs. 42.9%, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the COVID-19 pandemic's unprecedented devastation to the Bronx, along with worsening drug overdose deaths, OUD cascade of care outcomes were similar among patients referred to buprenorphine treatment before versus during the pandemic. Among patients who initiated buprenorphine treatment, treatment retention was better during (versus before) the pandemic. During a public health emergency, incorporating telehealth and prioritizing harm reduction are key strategies to maintain optimal OUD treatment outcomes.

Guideline adherence and reasons for recommending dose reduction in a primary care-based opioid management clinic.

BACKGROUND: To provide Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guideline-recommended practices for patients on long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) including individualized decisions about opioid dose reduction, we developed the Power Over Pain (POP) Clinic. OBJECTIVE: To describe frequency and reasons for opioid dose reduction and pre-post adherence to CDC guideline-recommended practices. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review with qualitative and pre-post analysis. PATIENTS AND SETTING: Patients at an urban internal medicine teaching practice-prescribed LTOT were seen at POP Clinic at least once. METHODS: Opioid dose reduction was defined by reduction in morphine-equivalent daily dose (MEDD) at 6 and 12 months after the first POP Clinic visit compared to baseline using paired t-tests. Among patients with a dose reduction, reasons documented in POP Clinic notes were qualitatively examined. Dichotomous measures of receiving four CDC guideline-recommended practices (controlled substance agreement [CSA], urine drug testing [UDT], prescription monitoring program review, and naloxone dispensing) at baseline versus 6 and 12 months were compared using McNemar's tests. RESULTS: Of the 70 patients, most were female (66 percent) and Hispanic (54 percent). Forty-three patients (61 percent) had an opioid dose reduction in 12 months after the first POP Clinic visit. The most frequent reason was low or unclear benefit of continuing the current dose (49 percent). Mean MEDD was reduced from 69 mg to 57 mg at 6 months (p < 0.01) and to 56 mg at 12 months (p < 0.01). Completing a CSA, UDT, and naloxone distribution increased at 6 and 12 months (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Individualized risk assessment in a primary care-based opioid management clinic is feasible and can result in opioid dose reduction and guideline adherence.

Rhabdomyolysis Induced Acute Kidney Injury in Hyperglycemic Hyperosmolar State Patient With New-Onset Diabetes: A Case Report.

The hyperglycemic hyperosmolar state (HHS) is a serious acute complication of type 2 diabetes mellitus that requires prompt recognition, diagnosis, and treatment. Reversible acute kidney injury is common in hyperglycemic states. However, hyperglycemic emergencies can contribute to the development of rhabdomyolysis, which can further aggravate acute kidney injury and can cause high morbidity and mortality. HHS can be the first clinical presentation of diabetes mellitus in some patients. Here, we present a case of HHS-related rhabdomyolysis and acute kidney injury, which was the first presentation of type 2 diabetes mellitus in this patient. Our case highlights the importance of a rare association between rhabdomyolysis and HHS in diabetic patients.

National trends in rates of death and hospital admissions related to acute myocardial infarction, heart failure and stroke, 1994-2004.

BACKGROUND: Rates of death from cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases have been steadily declining over the past few decades. Whether such declines are occurring to a similar degree for common disorders such as acute myocardial infarction, heart failure and stroke is uncertain. We examined recent national trends in mortality and rates of hospital admission for these 3 conditions. METHODS: We analyzed mortality data from Statistic Canada's Canadian Mortality Database and data on hospital admissions from the Canadian Institute for Health Information's Hospital Morbidity Database for the period 1994-2004. We determined age- and sex-standardized rates of death and hospital admissions per 100,000 population aged 20 years and over as well as in-hospital case-fatality rates. RESULTS: The overall age- and sex-standardized rate of death from cardiovascular disease in Canada declined 30.0%, from 360.6 per 100,000 in 1994 to 252.5 per 100 000 in 2004. During the same period, the rate fell 38.1% for acute myocardial infarction, 23.5% for heart failure and 28.2% for stroke, with improvements observed across most age and sex groups. The age- and sex-standardized rate of hospital admissions decreased 27.6% for stroke and 27.2% for heart failure. The rate for acute myocardial infarction fell only 9.2%. In contrast, the relative decline in the in-hospital case-fatality rate was greatest for acute myocardial infarction (33.1%; p < 0.001). Much smaller relative improvements in case-fatality rates were noted for heart failure (8.1%) and stroke (8.9%). INTERPRETATION: The rates of death and hospital admissions for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure and stroke in Canada changed at different rates over the 10-year study period. Awareness of these trends may guide future efforts for health promotion and health care planning and help to determine priorities for research and treatment.

Indicators of quality of care for patients with acute myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: There is a wide practice gap between optimal and actual care for patients with acute myocardial infarction in hospitals around the world. We undertook this initiative to develop an updated set of evidence-based indicators to measure and improve the quality of care for this patient population. METHODS: A 12-member expert panel was convened in 2007 to develop an updated set of quality indicators for acute myocardial infarction. The panel identified a list of potential indicators after reviewing the scientific literature, clinical practice guidelines and other published quality indicators. To develop the new list of indicators, the panel rated each potential indicator on 4 dimensions (reliability, validity, feasibility and usefulness in improving patient outcomes) and discussed the top-ranked quality indicators at a consensus meeting. RESULTS: Consensus was reached on 38 quality indicators: 17 that would be measurable using chart-abstracted data and 21 that would be measurable using administrative data. Of the 17 chart-review indicators, 13 address pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic care delivered to patients in hospital. In-hospital mortality was recommended as a key outcome indicator. Three system indicators were recommended to measure the collaborative responsiveness of the health care system from the call for help to intervention. It was recommended that hospitals strive for a minimum target benchmark of 90% or greater on process-of-care indicators. INTERPRETATION: Implementation of strategies by clinicians and hospitals to meet target benchmarks on these quality indicators could save the lives of many individuals with acute myocardial infarction.

Blindness in children at the Ida Rieu school for the blind and deaf.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the causes of blindness at the Ida Rieu school for the blind and deaf, Karachi, Pakistan. METHODS: A cross sectional study was conducted at the Ida Rieu School for the blind and deaf. The data collected from medical record of students was entered into the WHO/PBL eye examination form for children with blindness and low vision. RESULTS: Records of 144 pupils aged between 4-30 years were reviewed, including 67% males and 33% females. One third (31%) children had visual impairment (< 6/18-6/60) and 69% were blind (< 3/60-NPL). The commonest anatomical site was retina (41%) and whole globe (20%). The etiology was unknown in 49% cases. In 33% of cases, the data suggested hereditary cause as the etiology, 40% of cases were preventable and 13% treatable. CONCLUSION: Avoidable causes of blindness were seenin 53% of children, 58% of which were preventable and 19 were treatable.

Variability in opioid prescription monitoring and evidence of aberrant medication taking behaviors in urban safety-net clinics.

Little is known about variability in primary care providers' (PCPs) adherence to opioid-monitoring guidelines for patients. We examined variability of adherence to monitoring guidelines among PCPs and ascertained the relationship between PCP adherence and opioid misuse by their patients. We included primary care patients receiving long-term opioids (≥3 prescriptions within 6 months) for chronic noncancer pain and PCPs with ≥4 eligible patients. We examined guideline adherence using: (1) electronic health record documentation of opioid treatment agreement, (2) past-year urine drug screen (UDS), and (3) evidence of misuse through early refills (≥2 opioid prescriptions written 7-25 days after the previous prescription). Covariates included morphine equivalent daily opioid medication dose (MED, >50 mg/d vs ≤50mg/d). Multilevel regression models assessed variability among PCPs, and odds ratios examined associations among patient-level binary outcomes. Sixty-seven PCPs prescribed opioids to 1546 patients. Significant variability was found between PCPs in use of agreement (variance = 1.27, P < 0.001), UDS (variance = 1.75, P < 0.001), and early refills (variance = 0.29, P = 0.002). Primary care providers had a mean of 48% of patients with agreement (range, 9%-84%), 56% with ≥1 UDS (range, 7%-91%) and 36% with early refills (range, 19%-60%). High MED among patients was associated with increased odds of agreement (1.93, confidence interval [CI], 1.53-2.44), UDS (2.65, CI: 2.06-3.41), and early refill (2.92, CI: 2.30-3.70). Primary care providers varied significantly in adherence to opioid prescription guidelines. Increased patient risk was associated with increased monitoring and with greater misuse. Future work should study system-level interventions to enable clinical monitoring and support opioid guideline adherence.