"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.

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.

Evidence-Based Interventions to Improve Opioid Prescribing in Primary Care: a Qualitative Assessment of Implementation in Two Studies.

BACKGROUND: The TOPCARE and TEACH randomized controlled trials demonstrated the efficacy of a multi-faceted intervention to promote guideline-adherent long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) in primary care settings. Intervention components included a full-time Nurse Care Manager (NCM), an electronic registry, and academic detailing sessions. OBJECTIVE: This study sought to identify barriers, facilitators, and other issues germane to the wider implementation of this intervention. DESIGN: We conducted a nested, qualitative study at 4 primary care clinics (TOPCARE) and 2 HIV primary care clinics (TEACH), where the trials had been conducted. APPROACH: We purposively sampled primary care physicians and advanced practice providers (hereafter: PCPs) who had received the intervention. Semi-structured interviews explored perceptions of the intervention to identify unanticipated barriers to and facilitators of implementation. Interview transcripts were analyzed through iterative deductive and inductive coding exercises. KEY RESULTS: We interviewed 32 intervention participants, 30 physicians and 2 advanced practice providers, who were majority White (66%) and female (63%). Acceptability of the intervention was high, with most PCPs valuing didactic and team-based intervention elements, especially co-management of LTOT patients with the NCM. Adoption of new prescribing practices was facilitated by proximity to expertise, available behavioral health care, and the NCM's support. Most participants were enthusiastic about the intervention, though a minority voiced concerns about the appropriateness in their particular clinical environments, threats to the patient-provider relationship, or long-term sustainability. CONCLUSION: TOPCARE/TEACH participants found the intervention generally acceptable, appropriate, and easy to adopt in a variety of primary care environments, though some challenges were identified. Careful attention to the practical challenges of implementation and the professional relationships affected by the intervention may facilitate implementation and sustainability.

Post-traumatic stress disorder and risky opioid use among persons living with HIV and chronic pain.

Persons with HIV (PWH) experience chronic pain and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) at higher rates than the general population, and more often receive opioid medications to treat chronic pain. A known association exists between PTSD and substance use disorders, but less is known about the relationship between PTSD and risky opioid use among PWH taking prescribed opioid medications. In this observational study of PWH on long-term opioid medications for pain we examined associations between PTSD symptom severity based on the Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5, response range 0-80) and the following outcomes: 1) risk for opioid misuse (COMM score ≥13); 2) risky alcohol use (AUDIT score ≥8); 3) concurrent benzodiazepine prescription; and 4) morphine equivalent dose. Among 166 patients, 38 (23%) had a PCL-5 score over 38, indicating high PTSD symptom burden. Higher PCL-5 score (per 10 point difference) was associated with increased odds of opioid misuse (aOR 1.55; 95%CI: 1.31-1.83) and risky drinking (aOR: 1.28;1.07-1.52). No significant association was observed between PCL-5 score and benzodiazepine prescriptions or morphine equivalent dose. These findings suggest that when addressing alcohol and opioid use in PWH on long term opioid therapy, attention to PTSD symptoms is especially important given the higher risk for risky alcohol and opioid use among patients with this common comorbid condition.

Implementing harm reduction kits in an office-based addiction treatment program.

BACKGROUND: The rising rates of drug use-related complications call for a paradigm shift in the care for people who use drugs. While addiction treatment and harm reduction have historically been siloed in the US, co-location of these services in office-based addiction treatment (OBAT) settings offers a more realistic and patient-centered approach. We describe a quality improvement program on integrating harm reduction kits into an urban OBAT clinic. METHODS: After engaging appropriate stakeholders and delivering clinician and staff trainings on safer use best practices, we developed a clinical workflow for universal offering and distribution of pre-packaged kits coupled with patient-facing educational handouts. We assessed: (1) kit uptake with kit number and types distributed; and (2) implementation outcomes of feasibility, acceptability, appropriateness, and patient perceptions. RESULTS: One-month post-implementation, 28% (40/141) of completed in-person visits had at least one kit request, and a total of 121 kits were distributed. Staff and clinicians found the program to be highly feasible, acceptable, and appropriate, and patient perceptions were positive. CONCLUSIONS: Incorporating kits in OBAT settings is an important step toward increasing patient access and utilization of life-saving services. Our program uncovered a significant unmet need among our patients, suggesting that kit integration within addiction treatment can improve the standard of care for people who use drugs.

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.

Factors Associated with Long-Term Retention in Buprenorphine-Based Addiction Treatment Programs: a Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The average length of buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder is less than 6 months. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic review to determine what factors were associated with longer retention in buprenorphine treatment. DESIGN: We searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in February 2018. Articles were restricted to randomized controlled trials on human subjects, written in English, which contained ≥ 24 weeks of objective data on retention in buprenorphine treatment. MAIN MEASURES: We assessed whether dose of buprenorphine, treatment setting, or co-administration of behavioral therapy was associated with retention rates. KEY RESULTS: Over 14,000 articles were identified. Thirteen articles (describing 9 studies) met inclusion criteria. Measures of retention varied widely. Three studies compared doses of buprenorphine between 1 and 8 mg and showed significantly higher rates of retention with higher doses (p values < 0.01). All other studies utilized buprenorphine doses between 8 and 24 mg daily, without comparison. No study found a significant difference in retention between buprenorphine alone and buprenorphine plus behavioral therapy (p values > 0.05). Initiating buprenorphine while hospitalized or within criminal justice settings prior to outpatient treatment programs was significantly associated with retention in buprenorphine treatment (p values < 0.01 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Setting of treatment initiation and a higher buprenorphine dose are associated with improved long-term treatment retention. More objective data on buprenorphine treatment programs are needed, including a standardized approach to defining retention in buprenorphine treatment programs. REGISTRATION: This review was registered with PROSPERO (#CRD42019120336) in March 2019.

Do Urine Drug Tests Reveal Substance Misuse Among Patients Prescribed Opioids for Chronic Pain?

BACKGROUND: Urine drug testing (UDT) is a recommended risk mitigation strategy for patients prescribed opioids for chronic pain, but evidence that UDT supports identification of substance misuse is limited. OBJECTIVE: Identify the prevalence of UDT results that may identify substance misuse, including diversion, among patients prescribed opioids for chronic pain. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SUBJECTS: Patients (n=638) receiving opioids for chronic pain who had one or more UDTs, examining up to eight substances per sample, during a one 1-year period. MAIN MEASURES: Experts adjudicated the clinical concern that UDT results suggest substance misuse or diversion as not concerning, uncertain, or concerning. KEY RESULTS: Of 638 patients, 48% were female and 49% were over age 55 years. Patients had a median of three UDTs during the intervention year. We identified 37% of patients (235/638) with ≥1 concerning UDT and a further 35% (222/638) having ≥1 uncertain UDT. We found concerning UDTs due to non-detection of a prescribed substance in 24% (156/638) of patients and detection of a non-prescribed substance in 23% (147/638). Compared to patients over 65 years, those aged 18-34 years were more likely to have concerning UDT results with an adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of 4.8 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.9-12.5). Patients with mental health diagnoses (AOR 1.6 [95% CI 1.1-2.3]) and substance use diagnoses (AOR 2.3 [95% CI 1.5-3.7]) were more likely to have a concerning UDT result. CONCLUSIONS: Expert adjudication of UDT results identified clinical concern for substance misuse in 37% of patients receiving opioids for chronic pain. Further research is needed to determine if UDTs impact clinical practice or patient-related outcomes.

Behavioral Risk Factors for HIV Infection in Hospitalized Persons Who Co-use Stimulants and Opioids.

We investigated the association of 90-day opioid and stimulant co-use and HIV risk behaviors in a cross-sectional analysis of hospitalized HIV-negative people who inject drugs (PWID). We compared those injecting opioids alone to two sub-groups who co-used opioids with (1) cocaine, (2) amphetamine-type stimulants (ATS), on sex and injection drug risk behaviors assessed via the Risk Assessment Battery (RAB), where a higher score indicates a higher risk. Of 197 participants who injected opioids, 53% co-used cocaine only, 5% co-used ATS only, 18% co-used both cocaine and ATS, 24% co-used neither stimulant. PWID who injected opioids alone had a mean RAB drug risk score of 5.98 points and sex risk score of 2.16 points. Compared to PWID who injected opioids alone, PWID who co-used stimulants had higher mean drug risk RAB scores: cocaine, b = 2.84 points [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01; 4.67]; ATS, b = 3.43 points (95% CI 1.29; 5.57). Compared to PWID who injected opioids alone, cocaine co-use was associated with higher sex RAB scores b = 1.06 points (95% CI 0.32; 1.79). Overall, we found a significant association between stimulant co-use and higher HIV sex and drug risk scores.

RESUMEN: Investigamos la asociación entre el uso conjunto de opioides y estimulantes durante 90 días y las conductas de riesgo frente al VIH en un análisis transversal de personas hospitalizadas que se inyectan drogas y que son VIH negativas ("PWID" en lo sucesivo). Se comparó a los que consumían únicamente opioides con dos subgrupos que consumían opioides junto con (1) cocaína, (2) estimulantes de tipo anfetamínico ("ATS" en lo sucesivo), en relación con las conductas de riesgo evaluadas mediante la Serie de Pruebas de Evaluación de Riesgos ("RAB" en lo sucesivo). De los 197 participantes, el 53% sólo consumía cocaína, el 5% sólo ATS y el 18% cocaína y ATS; el 24% restante únicamente se inyectaba opiáceos. En comparación con las PWID que únicamente se inyectaban opioides, las PWID que consumían paralelamente estimulantes tenían puntuaciones medias más altas en el RAB de riesgo de drogas: cocaína, b = 2.84 puntos (intervalo de confianza [IC] del 95% 1.01; 4.67); ATS, b = 3.43 puntos (IC del 95% 1.29; 5.57). En comparación con las PWID que únicamente se inyectaban opioides, el co-consumo de cocaína se relacionó con puntuaciones más altas en la RAB en el sexo (1.06 puntos, IC del 95% 0.32; 1.79). En general, se encontró una asociación significativa entre el co-consumo de estimulantes y las puntuaciones más altas de riesgo sexual y de drogas frente al VIH.

Functional Impairment and Cognitive Symptoms Among People with HIV Infection on Chronic Opioid Therapy for Pain: The Impact of Gabapentin and Other Sedating Medications.

Gabapentin is associated with dizziness, falls, and somnolence yet commonly prescribed to people with HIV (PWH) treated with chronic opioid therapy (COT). Physical function and cognition are understudied when prescribed together. Among PWH on COT, we evaluated whether co-prescribed gabapentin is associated with (a) functional impairment; (b) trouble thinking clearly; and (c) difficulty controlling drowsiness using logistic regression models adjusted for prescribed opioid dose, other (non-gabapentin) sedating medication, substance use disorder, and mental/physical health indicators in a cross-sectional study. Among 166 participants, 40% were prescribed gabapentin, 41% reported functional impairment, 41% trouble thinking clearly, and 38% difficulty controlling drowsiness. Gabapentin co-prescribed with COT was significantly associated with trouble thinking clearly but not with functional impairment or difficulty controlling drowsiness. Clinicians should be cognizant of potential problems with thinking clearly when co-prescribing gabapentin and opioid medication.

Using Intervention Mapping to Develop a Novel Pain Self-Management Intervention for People with Cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is common among patients with cirrhosis and is challenging to treat. While promising, pain self-management (PSM) interventions have not been tailored to this population's needs. AIMS: To design a PSM intervention for patients with cirrhosis. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews with 17 patients with cirrhosis, 12 hepatologists, and 6 administrators from two medical centers were conducted to inform a rigorous, structured intervention mapping (IM) process. Qualitative content analysis was guided by social cognitive theory (SCT) and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and incorporated into intervention development. A planning group met regularly throughout the intervention, to reach consensus about how to use data and theory to develop the intervention through IM. RESULTS: Participants described barriers to PSM behaviors, including the absence of simple, evidence-based interventions for pain for patients with cirrhosis, inadequate provider knowledge, time, and training, and lack of champions, funding, and communication. Patients described high motivation to treat pain using behavioral methods including meditation, prayer, and exercise. The intervention was designed to address barriers to PSM behaviors for patients with cirrhosis, using behavior change methods that address knowledge, self-efficacy, and outcome expectations. The LEAP (Liver Education About Pain) intervention is a 12-week, modular intervention delivered by phone via individual and group sessions with a health coach. CONCLUSIONS: People with cirrhosis, hepatologists, and administrators informed this theory-driven, tailored PSM intervention, which was designed to be implementable in the real world.

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.

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. ​.

Hazardous alcohol use is associated with greater pain interference and prescription opioid misuse among persons living with HIV and chronic pain.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol use is common among persons living with HIV (PLWH), who often experience chronic pain, yet its impact on pain and opioid misuse is not fully characterized. METHODS: We assessed associations between hazardous alcohol use and pain interference, defined as the self-reported impact of pain on daily living, pain severity, and risk for opioid misuse among PLWH who were on long-term opioid therapy (LTOT). A cohort was recruited as part of the "Targeting Effective Analgesia in Clinics for HIV" (TEACH) study, a randomized controlled trial to improve LTOT in HIV clinics. The Alcohol Use Disorders Test (AUDIT), Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and the Current Opioid Misuse Measure (COMM) were administered at both baseline and 12-months. Linear mixed and generalized estimating equation models, incorporating data from both time points, evaluated associations between hazardous alcohol use (AUDIT ≥8) and: pain interference (0-10), pain severity (0-10), and opioid misuse risk (COMM ≥13), adjusting for age, gender, depressive symptoms, use of non-alcohol substances, time-point, and study-arm. RESULTS: The sample was comprised of 166 participants, of which 31 (19%) reported hazardous alcohol use. The majority were male (65%), black (72%), and the mean age was 54 (range: 29-77). Hazardous alcohol use was significantly associated with higher pain interference (adjusted mean difference [AMD]: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.08, 1.96) and higher odds of opioid misuse risk (AOR: 3.73, 95% CI: 1.88-7.39), but not pain severity (AMD: 0.47, 95% CI: - 0.35, 1.29). CONCLUSIONS: Hazardous alcohol use was associated with greater functional impairment in daily living from their pain and higher odds for prescription opioid misuse in this study of PLWH on LTOT. Providers should be attentive to alcohol use among PLWH who are prescribed opioids given associations with pain and opioid misuse. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02564341 (Intervention, September 30, 2015) and NCT02525731 (Patient Cohort, August 17, 2015). Both prospectively registered.

Research priorities for expanding access to methadone treatment for opioid use disorder in the United States: A National Institute on Drug Abuse Center for Clinical Trials Network Task Force report.

In the US, methadone treatment can only be provided to patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) through federal and state-regulated opioid treatment programs (OTPs). There is a shortage of OTPs, and racial and geographic inequities exist in access to methadone treatment. The National Institute on Drug Abuse Center for Clinical Trials Network convened the Methadone Access Research Task Force to develop a research agenda to expand and create more equitable access to methadone treatment for OUD. This research agenda included mechanisms that are available within and outside the current regulations. The task force identified 6 areas where research is needed: (1) access to methadone in general medical and other outpatient settings; (2) the impact of methadone treatment setting on patient outcomes; (3) impact of treatment structure on outcomes in patients receiving methadone; (4) comparative effectiveness of different medications to treat OUD; (5) optimal educational and support structure for provision of methadone by medical providers; and (6) benefits and harms of expanded methadone access. In addition to outlining these research priorities, the task force identified important cross-cutting issues, including the impact of patient characteristics, treatment, and treatment system characteristics such as methadone formulation and dose, concurrent behavioral treatment, frequency of dispensing, urine or oral fluid testing, and methods of measuring clinical outcomes. Together, the research priorities and cross-cutting issues represent a compelling research agenda to expand access to methadone in the US.

Racial/Ethnic Differences in the Medical Treatment of Opioid Use Disorders Within the VA Healthcare System Following Non-Fatal Opioid Overdose.

BACKGROUND: After non-fatal opioid overdoses, opioid prescribing patterns are often unchanged and the use of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUDs) remains low. Whether such prescribing differs by race/ethnicity remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess the association of race/ethnicity with the prescribing of opioids and MOUDs after a non-fatal opioid overdose. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Patients prescribed ≥ 1 opioid from July 1, 2010, to September 30, 2015, with a non-fatal opioid overdose in the Veterans Health Administration (VA). MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcomes were the proportion of patients prescribed: (1) any opioid during the 30 days before and after overdose and (2) MOUDs within 30 days after overdose by race and ethnicity. We conducted difference-in-difference analyses using multivariable regression to assess whether the change in opioid prescribing from before to after overdose differed by race/ethnicity. We also used multivariable regression to test whether MOUD prescribing after overdose differed by race/ethnicity. KEY RESULTS: Among 16,210 patients with a non-fatal opioid overdose (81.2% were white, 14.3% black, and 4.5% Hispanic), 10,745 (66.3%) patients received an opioid prescription (67.1% white, 61.7% black, and 65.9% Hispanic; p < 0.01) before overdose. After overdose, the frequency of receiving opioids was reduced by 18.3, 16.4, and 20.6 percentage points in whites, blacks, and Hispanics, respectively, with no significant difference-in-difference in opioid prescribing by race/ethnicity (p = 0.23). After overdose, 526 (3.2%) patients received MOUDs (2.9% white, 4.6% black, and 5.5% Hispanic; p < 0.01). Blacks (adjusted OR (aOR) 1.6; 95% CI 1.2, 1.9) and Hispanics (aOR 1.8; 95% CI 1.2, 2.6) had significantly larger odds of receiving MOUDs than white patients. CONCLUSIONS: In a national cohort of patients with non-fatal opioid overdose in VA, there were no racial/ethnic differences in changes in opioid prescribing after overdose. Although blacks and Hispanics were more likely than white patients to receive MOUDs in the 30 days after overdose, less than 4% of all groups received such therapy.

Disagreement and Uncertainty Among Experts About how to Respond to Marijuana Use in Patients on Long-term Opioids for Chronic Pain: Results of a Delphi Study.

BACKGROUND: Marijuana use is common among patients on long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) for chronic pain, but there is a lack of evidence to guide clinicians' response. OBJECTIVE: To generate expert consensus about responding to marijuana use among patients on LTOT. DESIGN: Analysis from an online Delphi study. SETTING/SUBJECTS: Clinician experts in pain and opioid management across the United States. METHODS: Participants generated management strategies in response to marijuana use without distinction between medical and nonmedical use, then rated the importance of each management strategy from 1 (not at all important) to 9 (extremely important). A priori rules for consensus were established, and disagreement was explored using cases. Thematic analysis of free-text responses examined factors that influenced participants' decision-making. RESULTS: Of 42 participants, 64% were internal medicine physicians. There was consensus that it is not important to taper opioids as an initial response to marijuana use. There was disagreement about the importance of tapering opioids if there is a pattern of repeated marijuana use without clinical suspicion for a cannabis use disorder (CUD) and consensus that tapering is of uncertain importance if there is suspicion for CUD. Three themes influenced experts' perceptions of the importance of tapering: 1) benefits and harms of marijuana for the individual patient, 2) a spectrum of belief about the overall riskiness of marijuana use, and 3) variable state laws or practice policies. CONCLUSIONS: Experts disagree and are uncertain about the importance of opioid tapering for patients with marijuana use. Experts were influenced by patient factors, provider beliefs, and marijuana policy, highlighting the need for further research.

Chronic Opioid Therapy in People Living With Human Immunodeficiency Virus: Patients' Perspectives on Risks, Monitoring, and Guidelines.

Background: Chronic opioid therapy (COT) is common in people living with human immunodeficiency virus (PLHIV), but is not well studied. We assessed opioid risk behaviors, perceptions of risk, opioid monitoring, and associated Current Opioid Misuse Measure (COMM) scores of PLHIV on COT. Methods: COT was defined as ≥3 opioid prescriptions ≥21 days apart in the past 6 months. Demographics, substance use, COMM score, and perceptions of and satisfaction with COT monitoring were assessed among PLHIV on COT from 2 HIV clinics. Results: Among participants (N = 165) on COT, 66% were male and 72% were black, with a median age of 55 (standard deviation, 8) years. Alcohol and drug use disorders were present in 17% and 19%, respectively. In 43%, the COMM score, a measure of potential opioid misuse, was high. Thirty percent had an opioid treatment agreement, 66% a urine drug test (UDT), and 12% a pill count. Ninety percent acknowledged opioids' addictive potential. Median (interquartile range) satisfaction levels (1-10 [10 = highest]) were 10 (7-10) for opioid treatment agreements, 9.5 (6-10) for pill counts, and 10 (8-10) for UDT. No association was found between higher COMM score and receipt of or satisfaction with COT monitoring. Conclusions: Among PLHIV on COT, opioid misuse and awareness of the addictive potential of COT are common, yet COT monitoring practices were not guideline concordant. Patients who received monitoring practices reported high satisfaction. Patient attitudes suggest high acceptance of guideline concordant care for PLHIV on COT when it occurs.

Provider opioid prescribing practices and the belief that opioids keep people living with HIV engaged in care: a cross-sectional study.

We describe HIV providers' opioid prescribing practices and assess whether belief that chronic opioid therapy (COT) keeps people living with HIV (PLWH) engaged in care is associated with differences in these practices among providers from two HIV clinics. We conducted logistic regression to evaluate the association between the belief that COT keeps PLWH engaged in care and at least one component of guideline-recommended care (i.e., urine drug tests, treatment agreements, and/or prescription monitoring program use). The sample included 41 providers with a median age of 42 years, 63% female, 37% non-white. Routine adherence to guideline-recommended practices was: 34% urine drug tests, 27% treatment agreements, and 17% prescription monitoring program. Over half [54%] agreed that COT keeps PLWH engaged in care. There was no significant association between belief that COT keeps PLWH engaged in care and routinely providing any recommended COT care component (aOR 2.38; 95% CI 0.65-8.73). Most HIV providers do not routinely follow guidelines for opioid prescribing. We observed a positive association between belief that COT keeps PLWH engaged in care and following any guideline-recommended prescribing practices, although the result was not statistically significant. Interventions are needed to improve guideline-concordant care for COT by HIV providers.