Associations between smoking and pain in early recovery in residential substance use treatment-seekers.

INTRODUCTION: A growing literature indicates bidirectional associations between pain and tobacco use. Cigarette smokers are at increased risk for chronic pain, and observational and experimental studies indicate that pain increases motivation to smoke. Tobacco use disorder frequently co-occurs with other substance use disorders, which are also associated with chronic pain vulnerability. Despite evidence that pain significantly predicts smoking and relapse, associations between smoking history/trajectory and changes in pain over the course of treatment have not been characterized. The objective of the study was to determine the association between in-treatment smoking trajectory, pack-years (i.e., number of cigarette packs smoked per day multiplied by smoking duration), pain-related interference in daily activities, and pain intensity over the course of residential treatment. METHODS: In this study, 280 adult smokers in a residential SUD treatment center in North Central Florida completed questionnaires assessing cigarette use, pain intensity, and pain interference at treatment entry and discharge (Mean = 80.3 days, SD = 25.6). Most participants were diagnosed with alcohol use disorder (66.1 %). Opioid (27.9 %) and cannabis use disorders (29.6 %) were also common. Participants were grouped by whether their smoking increased (n = 36), decreased (n = 46), or stayed the same (n = 133) from entry to discharge. RESULTS: Analyses indicated a positive association between pack-years and pain intensity at both baseline (r = 0.185, p = 0.018) and discharge (r = 0.184, p = 0.019). Smoking trajectory was associated with pack-years, with those decreasing smoking having greater pack-years than those sustaining or increasing use [F(2,136) = 8.62, p < 0.01, η2p = 0.114]. Mixed general linear models indicated pain intensity [F(1,274) = 44.15, p < 0.0001, η2p = 0.138] and interference in day-to-day activities [F(1,276) = 31.79, p < 0.0001, η2p = 0.103] decreased significantly over time. However, there was no main effect of smoking trajectory on pain intensity [F(2,212) = 2.051, p = 0.131, η2p = 0.019] or of smoking trajectory by time interaction [F(2, 212) = 1.228, p = 0.295, η2p = 0.011]. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, findings provide evidence that smoking behavior influences pain within the context of residential substance use treatment. Given that pain is associated with urge to use substances and risk of return to use, more consistent and rigorous assessment of pain and proactive pain management is likely to enhance substance use treatment outcomes among people who smoke.

Longitudinal associations between pain and substance use disorder treatment outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Pain is commonly reported among those in treatment for substance use disorders (SUD) and is associated with poorer SUD treatment outcomes. The current study examined the trajectory of pain over the course of SUD treatment and associations with substance use outcomes. METHODS: This observational study included adults seeking treatment for alcohol, cannabis, or opioid use disorders (N = 811). Participants completed a battery of assessments at treatment admission, 30 days post admission, and at discharge, including measures of demographics, pain, quality of life, abstinence self-efficacy, and craving. RESULTS: Analyses indicated linear reductions in pain intensity and interference over time. Significant interactive effects were observed for opioid use disorder (OUD) and time, such that participants with OUD had greater reductions in pain intensity and interference over time compared to those without OUD. Elevated pain intensity was associated with negative treatment outcomes, including reduced quality of life and abstinence self-efficacy, and greater craving and negative affect. CONCLUSIONS: Reductions in pain occur over the course of SUD treatment, particularly for those with OUD. Greater pain was also associated with adverse SUD treatment outcomes. Results suggest that treatment and associated abstinence may be beneficial for those with co-occurring pain and SUD, highlighting an additional benefit of improving access to SUD treatment for patients and health care systems. Future research should replicate these findings among diverse samples and further characterize the trajectory of pain during and after SUD treatment.

Predictive Value of Positive Drug Screening Results in an Urban Outpatient Population.

Urine drug testing (UDT) has become an essential component in the management of patients prescribed opioid analgesics for the treatment of chronic non-malignant pain. Several laboratory methods are available to monitor adherence with the pharmacological regimen and abstinence from illicit or unauthorized medications. Immunochemical screening methods are rapid and economical, but they have limitations, including lack of specificity, and confirmatory methods are often necessary to verify presumptive positive results. We analyzed the results of confirmatory assays in an outpatient setting to determine the predictive value of presumptive positive urine drug screen results using an automated immunoassay for eight common drugs or drug classes. Positive predictive values (PPVs), in descending order, were as follows: cannabinoids (100%), cocaine (100%), opiates (86.8%), benzodiazepines (74.6%), oxycodone (67.6%), methadone (44.1%) and amphetamines (9.3%). The number of positive barbiturate results was too small to be included in the statistical analysis.

Acute Pain Medicine in the United States: A Status Report.

BACKGROUND: Consensus indicates that a comprehensive,multimodal, holistic approach is foundational to the practice of acute pain medicine (APM),but lack of uniform, evidence-based clinical pathways leads to undesirable variability throughout U. S. healthcare systems. Acute pain studies are inconsistently synthesized to guide educational programs. Advanced practice techniques involving regional anesthesia assume the presence of a physician-led, multidisciplinary acute pain service,which is often unavailable or inconsistently applied.This heterogeneity of educational and organizational standards may result in unnecessary patient pain and escalation of healthcare costs. METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel was nominated through the APM Shared Interest Group of the American Academy of Pain Medicine. The panel met in Chicago, IL, in July 2014, to identify gaps and set priorities in APM research and education. RESULTS: The panel identified three areas of critical need: 1) an open-source acute pain data registry and clinical support tool to inform clinical decision making and resource allocation and to enhance research efforts; 2) a strong professional APM identity as an accredited subspecialty; and 3) educational goals targeted toward third-party payers,hospital administrators, and other key stake holders to convey the importance of APM. CONCLUSION: This report is the first step in a 3-year initiative aimed at creating conditions and incentives for the optimal provision of APM services to facilitate and enhance the quality of patient recovery after surgery, illness, or trauma. The ultimate goal is to reduce the conversion of acute pain to the debilitating disease of chronic pain.

Medical cannabis and chronic opioid therapy.

Fourteen states and the District of Columbia have legalized the use of cannabis for medical purposes. A small, high-quality literature supports the efficacy of medical cannabis for the treatment of neuropathic pain. The smoked botanical product, however, is associated with a number of adverse medical and psychiatric consequences. Furthermore, experimental data indicate that acute use of cannabis results in impairment of every important metric related to the safe operation of a motor vehicle. Epidemiological data show associations between recent cannabis use and both psychomotor impairment and motor vehicle crashes, associations that are strengthened by the concomitant use of alcohol and other central nervous system depressants. Finally, data from pain clinics reveals an unusually high prevalence of cannabis use in nearly all age groups and an association between cannabis use and opioid and other substance misuse. Based on available data and expert opinion, concomitant use of cannabis and opioids is an absolute contraindication to the operation of a motor vehicle. In patients who use cannabis and are prescribed opioids, heightened vigilance for opioid- and other substance-related problems is warranted. It is appropriate to refrain from prescribing opioids to individuals using medical cannabis if there is reasonable suspicion that the combination will pose a risk to the patient or others.

The prevalence and significance of cannabis use in patients prescribed chronic opioid therapy: a review of the extant literature.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis is the most widely consumed illicit drug in the United States. Its use, particularly in early initiates, is associated with subsequent development of other drug and alcohol use disorders. OBJECTIVE: The authors examined the prevalence of cannabis use and the association between cannabis use and aberrant opioid-related behaviors in patients prescribed chronic opioid therapy for persistent pain. METHODS: PubMed was queried for studies of chronic opioid therapy in which aberrant opioid-related behaviors were quantitatively examined and in which cannabis use data (as determined by cannabinoid-positive urine drug tests) were extricable from that of other substances of abuse. RESULTS: The prevalence of cannabis use among patients prescribed chronic opioid therapy in these studies ranged from 6.2% to 39%, compared with 5.8% in the general United States population. Furthermore, cannabis use in chronic opioid patients shows statistically significant associations with present and future aberrant opioid-related behaviors. CONCLUSION: Cannabis use is prevalent in patients prescribed chronic opioid therapy and is associated with opioid misuse. Further research is necessary to clarify the strength and the nature of the association between cannabis use and opioid misuse, and to address additional questions about the consequences of cannabis use in the context of chronic opioid therapy.

Urine drug test interpretation: what do physicians know?

OBJECTIVE: To determine the level of urine drug test (UDT) interpretive knowledge of physicians who use these instruments to monitor adherence in their patients on chronic opioid therapy. METHODS: A seven-question instrument consisting of six five-option, single-best-answer multiple choice questions and one yes/no question was completed by 114 physicians (77 who employ UDT and 37 who do not) attending one of three regional opioid education conferences. We calculated frequencies and performed chi2 analyses to examine bivariate associations between UDT utilization and interpretive knowledge. RESULTS: The instrument was completed by 80 percent of eligible respondents. None of the physicians who employ UDT answered all seven questions correctly, and only 30 percent answered more than half correctly. Physicians who employ UDT performed no better on any of the questions than physicians who do not employ UDT. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians who employ UDT to monitor patients receiving chronic opioid therapy are not proficient in test interpretation. This study highlights the need for improved physician education; it is imperative for physicians to work closely with certified laboratory professionals when ordering and interpreting these tests.