STRategies to Improve Pain and Enjoy life (STRIPE): results of a pragmatic randomized trial of pain coping skills training and opioid medication taper guidance for patients on long-term opioid therapy.

ABSTRACT: Because long-term opioid therapy (LtOT) for chronic pain has uncertain benefits and dose-dependent harms, safe and effective strategies for opioid tapering are needed. Adapting a promising pilot study intervention, we conducted the STRategies to Improve Pain and Enjoy life (STRIPE) pragmatic clinical trial. Patients in integrated health system on moderate-to-high dose of LtOT for chronic noncancer pain were randomized individually to usual care plus intervention (n = 79) or usual care only (n = 74). The intervention included pain coping skills training and optional support for opioid taper, delivered in 18 telephone sessions over a year, with pharmacologic guidance provided to participants' primary care providers by a pain physician. Coprimary outcomes were daily opioid dose (morphine milligram equivalent [MME]), calculated using pharmacy dispensing data, and the self-reported Pain, Enjoyment of Life and General Activity scale at 12 months (primary time point) and 6 months. Secondary outcomes included opioid misuse, opioid difficulties, opioid craving, pain self-efficacy, and global impression of change, depression, and anxiety. Only 41% randomized to the intervention completed all sessions. We did not observe significant differences between intervention and usual care for MME (adjusted mean difference: -2.3 MME; 95% confidence interval: -10.6, 5.9; P = 0.578), the Pain, Enjoyment of Life, General Activity scale (0.0 [95% confidence interval: -0.5, 0.5], P = 0.985), or most secondary outcomes. The intervention did not lower opioid dose or improve pain or functioning. Other strategies are needed to reduce opioid doses while improving pain and function for patients who have been on LtOT for years with high levels of medical, mental health, and substance use comorbidity.

"I really had somebody in my corner." Patient experiences with a pharmacist-led opioid tapering program.

BACKGROUND: Opioid tapering has been identified as an effective strategy to prevent the dangers associated with long-term opioid therapy for patients with chronic pain. However, many patients are resistant to tapering, and conversations about tapering can be challenging for health care providers. Pharmacists can play a role in supporting both providers and patients with the process of opioid tapering. OBJECTIVE: Qualitatively describe patient experiences with a unique phone-based and pharmacy-led opioid tapering program implemented within an integrated health care system. METHODS: In-depth telephone interviews with patients who completed the program were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed. Themes were identified through a constant comparative approach. RESULTS: We completed 25 interviews; 80% of patients were women (20), with a mean age of 58 years, and 72% (18) had been using opioids for pain management for 10 or more years. Most (60%) described a positive and satisfying experience with the tapering program. Strengths of the program reported by patients included a patient-centered and compassionate taper approach, flexible taper pace, easy access to knowledgeable pharmacist advocates, and resultant improvements in quality of life (e.g., increased energy). Challenges reported included: unhelpful or difficult-to-access nonpharmacological pain management options, negative quality of life impacts (e.g., inability to exercise), and lack of choice in the taper process. At the end of tapering, most patients (72%) described their pain as reduced or manageable rather than worse and expressed willingness to use the program in the future if a need should arise. CONCLUSIONS: Patients in a pharmacist-led opioid tapering program appreciated the program's individualized approach to care and access to pharmacist' expertise. Most interviewed patients successfully reduced their opioid use and recommended that the program should continue as an offered service. To improve the program, patients suggested increased personalization of the taper process and additional support for withdrawal symptoms and nonpharmacological pain management.

Depression and Long-Term Prescription Opioid Use and Opioid Use Disorder: Implications for Pain Management in Cancer.

OPINION STATEMENT: Preventing depression in cancer patients on long-term opioid therapy should begin with depression screening before opioid initiation and repeated screening during treatment. In weighing the high morbidity of depression and opioid use disorder in patients with chronic cancer pain against a dearth of evidence-based therapies studied in this population, patients and clinicians are left to choose among imperfect but necessary treatment options. When possible, we advise engaging psychiatric and pain/palliative specialists through collaborative care models and recommending mindfulness and psychotherapy to all patients with significant depression alongside cancer pain. Medications for depression should be reserved for moderate to severe symptoms. We recommend escitalopram/citalopram or sertraline among selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), or the serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) duloxetine, venlafaxine, or desvenlafaxine if patients have a significant component of neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia. Tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) (consider nortriptyline or desipramine, which have better anticholinergic profiles) should be considered for patients who do not respond to or tolerate SSRI/SNRIs. Existing evidence is inadequate to definitively recommend methylphenidate or novel agents, such as ketamine or psilocybin, as adjunctive treatments for cancer-related depression and pain. Physicians who treat patients with cancer pain should utilize universal precautions to limit the risk of non-medical opioid use (non-medical opioid use). Patients should be screened for non-medical opioid use behaviors at initial consultation and at regular intervals during treatment using a non-judgmental approach that reduces stigma. Co-management with an addiction specialist may be indicated for patients at high risk of non-medical opioid use and opioid use disorder. Buprenorphine and methadone are indicated for the treatment of opioid use disorder, and while they have not been systematically studied for treatment of opioid use disorder in patients with cancer pain, they do provide analgesia for cancer pain. While an interdisciplinary team approach to manage psychological stress may be beneficial, this may not be possible for patients treated outside of comprehensive cancer centers.

"We Need to Taper." Interviews with Clinicians and Pharmacists About Use of a Pharmacy-Led Opioid Tapering Program.

OBJECTIVE: To identify factors that influence or interfere with referrals by primary care providers (PCPs) to a pharmacist-led telephone-based program to assist patients undergoing opioid tapering. The Support Team Onsite Resource for Management of Pain (STORM) program provides individualized patient care and supports PCPs in managing opioid tapers. DESIGN: Qualitative interviews were conducted with referring PCPs and STORM staff. Interview guides addressed concepts from the RE-AIM framework, focusing on issues affecting referral to the STORM program. SETTING: An integrated healthcare system (HCS) in the Northwest United States. SUBJECTS: Thirty-five interviews were conducted with 20 PCPs and 15 STORM staff. METHODS: Constant comparative analysis was used to identify key themes from interviews. A codebook was developed based on interview data and a qualitative software program was used for coding, iterative review, and content analysis. Representative quotes illustrate identified themes. RESULTS: Use of the STORM opioid tapering program was influenced by PCP, patient, and HCS considerations. Factors motivating use of STORM included lack of PCP time to support chronic pain patients requiring opioid tapering and the perception that STORM is a valued partner in patient care. Impediments to referral included PCP confidence in managing opioid tapering, patient resistance to tapering, forgetting about program availability, and PCP resistance to evolving guidelines regarding opioid tapering goals. CONCLUSIONS: PCPs recognized that STORM supported patient safety and reduced clinician burden. Utilization of the program could be improved through ongoing PCP education about the service and consistent co-location of STORM pharmacists within primary care clinics.

Cannabis Legalization Does Not Influence Patient Compliance with Opioid Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Prescription opioid use and opioid related deaths continue to increase nationwide. Several states have adopted legislation allowing for recreational use of cannabis. Little is known about how recreational cannabis laws impact compliance in chronic pain patients who have been prescribed opioid therapy. The goals of this study were to (1) retrospectively assess the effect of cannabis use on compliance with opioid therapy in a high-risk patient population and (2) determine the impact of legalization of recreational cannabis on patients prescribed therapeutic opioids. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study on results from a "high-risk" urine drug testing panel. Results from 1 year before and 1 year after initiation of recreational cannabis legislation were analyzed. This testing panel included qualitative assays for cannabinoids and 9 other common drugs of abuse in addition to a quantitative LC-MS/MS assay for 23 different opioids and metabolites. Opioid compliance was assigned by reviewing pathologists' interpretations. RESULTS: In the pre-legalization period, 1776 panels were performed, and in the post-legalization, 1648 panels were performed. An increase (6%) in the rate of positive cannabinoids screening results was observed after legalization of recreational cannabis; however, the overall compliance rate was consistent. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that legalization of recreational cannabis does not affect compliance rate in patients treated with opioid therapy for chronic pain.

Characteristics of patients with chronic pain accessing treatment with medical cannabis in Washington State.

OBJECTIVES: This study was conducted to better understand the characteristics of chronic pain patients seeking treatment with medicinal cannabis (MC). DESIGN: Retrospective chart reviews of 139 patients (87 males, median age 47 years; 52 females, median age 48 years); all were legally qualified for MC use in Washington State. SETTING: Regional pain clinic staffed by university faculty. INCLUSION CRITERIA: age 18 years and older; having legally accessed MC treatment, with valid documentation in their medical records. All data were de-identified. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Records were scored for multiple indicators, including time since initial MC authorization, qualifying condition(s), McGill Pain score, functional status, use of other analgesic modalities, including opioids, and patterns of use over time. RESULTS: Of 139 patients, 15 (11 percent) had prior authorizations for MC before seeking care in this clinic. The sample contained 236.4 patient-years of authorized MC use. Time of authorized use ranged from 11 days to 8.31 years (median of 1.12 years). Most patients were male (63 percent) yet female patients averaged 0.18 years longer authorized use. There were no other gender-specific trends or factors. Most patients (n = 123, 88 percent) had more than one pain syndrome present. Myofascial pain syndrome was the most common diagnosis (n = 114, 82 percent), followed by neuropathic pain (n = 89, 64 percent), discogenic back pain (n = 72, 51.7 percent), and osteoarthritis (n = 37, 26.6 percent). Other diagnoses included diabetic neuropathy, central pain syndrome, phantom pain, spinal cord injury, fibromyalgia, rheumatoid arthritis, HIV neuropathy, visceral pain, and malignant pain. In 51 (37 percent) patients, there were documented instances of major hurdles related to accessing MC, including prior physicians unwilling to authorize use, legal problems related to MC use, and difficulties in finding an affordable and consistent supply of MC. CONCLUSIONS: Data indicate that males and females access MC at approximately the same rate, with similar median authorization times. Although the majority of patient records documented significant symptom alleviation with MC, major treatment access and delivery barriers remain.

Medicinal use of cannabis in the United States: historical perspectives, current trends, and future directions.

Cannabis (marijuana) has been used for medicinal purposes for millennia, said to be first noted by the Chinese in c. 2737 BCE. Medicinal cannabis arrived in the United States much later, burdened with a remarkably checkered, yet colorful, history. Despite early robust use, after the advent of opioids and aspirin, medicinal cannabis use faded. Cannabis was criminalized in the United States in 1937, against the advice of the American Medical Association submitted on record to Congress. The past few decades have seen renewed interest in medicinal cannabis, with the National Institutes of Health, the Institute of Medicine, and the American College of Physicians, all issuing statements of support for further research and development. The recently discovered endocannabinoid system has greatly increased our understanding of the actions of exogenous cannabis. Endocannabinoids appear to control pain, muscle tone, mood state, appetite, and inflammation, among other effects. Cannabis contains more than 100 different cannabinoids and has the capacity for analgesia through neuromodulation in ascending and descending pain pathways, neuroprotection, and anti-inflammatory mechanisms. This article reviews the current and emerging research on the physiological mechanisms of cannabinoids and their applications in managing chronic pain, muscle spasticity, cachexia, and other debilitating problems.