Yoga and Physical Therapy for Chronic Pain and Opioid Use Disorder Onsite in an Opioid Treatment Program: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of integrated treatment for chronic pain and opioid use disorder (OUD). Yoga and physical therapy (PT) may improve pain and physical function of people living with (PLW) chronic low back pain (CLBP) and may also reduce opioid craving and use, but PLW with OUD face barriers to accessing these interventions. We hypothesize that compared to treatment as usual (TAU), providing yoga and PT onsite at opioid treatment programs (OTPs) will be effective at improving pain, opioid use, and quality of life among people with CLBP and OUD, and will be cost-effective. METHODS: In this hybrid type-1 effectiveness-implementation study, we will randomly assign 345 PLW CLBP and OUD from OTPs in the Bronx, NY, to 12 weeks of onsite yoga, onsite PT, or TAU. Primary outcomes are pain intensity, opioid use, and cost-effectiveness. Secondary outcomes include physical function and overall well-being. DISCUSSION: This trial tests an innovative, patient-centered approach to combined management for pain and OUD in real-world settings. We rigorously examine the efficacy of yoga and PT onsite at OTPs as nonpharmacologic, cost-effective treatments among people with CLBP and OUD who face barriers to integrated care.

Low-Dose Buprenorphine Initiation for Hospitalized Patients With Chronic Pain and Opioid Use Disorder or Opioid Misuse: Protocol for an Open-Label, Parallel-Group, Effectiveness-Implementation Randomized Controlled Trial.

Buprenorphine is an effective medication for both opioid use disorder (OUD) and chronic pain (CP), but transitioning from full opioid agonists to buprenorphine, a partial opioid agonist, can be challenging. Preliminary studies suggest that low-dose buprenorphine initiation can overcome some challenges in starting treatment, but no randomized controlled trials have compared low-dose and standard buprenorphine initiation approaches regarding effectiveness and safety or examined implementation in hospital settings. In a pragmatic open-label hybrid type I effectiveness-implementation trial based in a single urban health system, 270 hospitalized patients with (a) CP and (b) OUD or opioid misuse are being randomized to buprenorphine treatment initiation using 5-day low-dose or standard initiation protocols. Outcomes include buprenorphine treatment uptake (primary), defined as receiving buprenorphine treatment 7 days after enrollment, and other OUD and pain outcomes at 1-, 3-, and 6-month follow-up (secondary). Data collection will also include safety measures, implementation of low-dose initiation protocols, patient acceptability, and cost-effectiveness. Comparing strategies in a randomized clinical trial will provide the most definitive data to date regarding the effectiveness and safety of low-dose buprenorphine initiation. The study will also provide important data on treating CP at a time that clinical guidelines are evolving to center buprenorphine as a preferred opioid for CP.

Addressing System and Clinician Barriers to Emergency Department-initiated Buprenorphine: An Evaluation of Post-intervention Physician Outcomes.

Introduction: Emergency departments (ED) are in the unique position to initiate buprenorphine, an evidence-based treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD). However, barriers at the system and clinician level limit its use. We describe a series of interventions that address these barriers to ED-initiated buprenorphine in one urban ED. We compare post-intervention physician outcomes between the study site and two affiliated sites without the interventions. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study conducted at three affiliated urban EDs where the intervention site implemented OUD-related electronic note templates, clinical protocols, a peer navigation program, education, and reminders. Post-intervention, we administered an anonymous, online survey to physicians at all three sites. Survey domains included demographics, buprenorphine experience and knowledge, comfort with addressing OUD, and attitudes toward OUD treatment. Physician outcomes were compared between the intervention site and the control sites with bivariate tests. We used logistic regression controlling for significant demographic differences to compare physicians' buprenorphine experience. Results: Of 113 (51%) eligible physicians, 58 completed the survey: 27 from the intervention site, and 31 from the control sites. Physicians at the intervention site were more likely to spend <75% of their work week in clinical practice and to be in medical practice for <7 years. Buprenorphine knowledge (including status of buprenorphine prescribing waiver), comfort with addressing OUD, and attitudes toward OUD treatment did not differ significantly between the sites. Physicians were 4.5 times more likely to have administered buprenorphine at the intervention site (odds ratio [OR] 4.5, 95% confidence interval 1.4-14.4, P = 0.01), which remained significant after adjusting for clinical time and years in practice, (OR 3.5 and 4.6, respectively). Conclusion: Physicians exposed to interventions addressing system- and clinician-level implementation barriers were at least three times as likely to have administered buprenorphine in the ED. Physicians' buprenorphine knowledge, comfort with addressing and attitudes toward OUD treatment did not differ significantly between sites. Our findings suggest that ED-initiated buprenorphine can be facilitated by addressing implementation barriers, while physician knowledge, comfort, and attitudes may be harder to improve.

Incarceration history and opioid use among adults living with HIV and chronic pain: a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Adults living with HIV have disproportionately high chronic pain, prescription opioid use, history of substance use, and incarceration. While incarceration can have long-lasting health impacts, prior studies have not examined whether distant (>1 year prior) incarceration is associated with opioid use for chronic pain, or with opioid misuse or opioid use disorder among people living with HIV and chronic pain. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study of adults living with HIV and chronic pain. The independent variables were any distant incarceration and drug-related distant incarceration (both dichotomous). Dependent variables were current long-term opioid therapy, current opioid misuse, and current opioid use disorder. A series of multivariate logistic regression models were conducted, adjusting for covariates. RESULTS: In a cohort of 148 participants, neither distant incarceration nor drug-related incarceration history were associated with current long-term opioid therapy. Distant incarceration was associated with current opioid misuse (AOR 3.28; 95% CI: 1.41-7.61) and current opioid use disorder (AOR 4.40; 95% CI: 1.54-12.56). Drug-related incarceration history was also associated with current opioid misuse (AOR 4.31; 95% CI: 1.53-12.17) and current opioid use disorder (AOR 7.28; 95% CI: 2.06-25.71). CONCLUSIONS: The positive associations of distant incarceration with current opioid misuse and current opioid use disorder could indicate a persistent relationship between incarceration and substance use in people living with HIV and chronic pain. Additional research on opioid use among formerly incarcerated individuals in chronic pain treatment is needed.

Trajectories of Opioid Misuse and Opioid Use Disorder Among Adults With Chronic Pain and HIV: An Observational Study.

OBJECTIVES: In a longitudinal cohort of patients with HIV and chronic pain, we sought to (1) identify trajectories of opioid misuse and opioid use disorder (OUD) symptoms, and to (2) determine whether prescription opioid dose was associated with symptom trajectories. METHODS: We leveraged an existing 12-month longitudinal observational study, Project PIMENTO, of persons living with HIV and chronic pain who received care at a hospital system in the Bronx, New York. A quota sampling strategy was used to ensure variability of prescribed opioid use in the recruited sample. Research interviews occurred quarterly and assessed opioid behaviors and criteria for OUD. To describe symptom trajectories, we conducted 2 separate longitudinal latent class analyses to group participants into (1) opioid misuse and (2) OUD trajectories. Finally, we used multinomial logistic regression models to examine the relationship between baseline prescription opioid dose and symptom trajectories. RESULTS: Of 148 total participants, at baseline 63 (42.6%) had an active opioid prescription, 69 (46.6%) met the criteria for current opioid misuse, and 44 (29.7%) met the criteria for current OUD. We found 3 opioid misuse and 3 OUD symptom trajectories, none of which showed worsened symptoms over time. In addition, we found that higher prescription opioid dose at baseline was associated with a greater OUD symptom trajectory. CONCLUSIONS: Opioid misuse and OUD were common but stable or decreasing over time. Although these results are reassuring, our findings also support prior studies that high-dose opioid therapy is associated with greater OUD symptoms.

Loss, liberation, and agency: Patient experiences of methadone treatment at opioid treatment programs during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Despite its safety and effectiveness, methadone treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) remains highly stigmatized, and stringent opioid treatment program (OTP) attendance requirements create barriers to retention for many patients. The COVID-19 pandemic prompted a shift in federal regulations governing methadone, including a blanket exemption permitting increased take-home doses of methadone. We studied the impact of these changes upon established patients' experiences of OTP care. METHOD: We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with 18 OTP patients who met our criteria of having established OTP care (i.e., enrolled at the OTP for at least 12 weeks) and were administered methadone three to six days weekly prior to the March 2020 blanket exemption. Interviews centered on how COVID-19 had affected their experiences of receiving treatment at an OTP. RESULTS: We identified three interconnected themes relevant to transformation of OTP care by the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants described mourning therapeutic OTP relationships and structure (1. loss), yet feeling more satisfaction with fewer in-person OTP visits (2. liberation), and appreciating more opportunities to self-direct their OUD care (3. agency). DISCUSSION: Structural changes made to OTP care early in the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in loss of community and structure. Increasing the availability of take-home methadone also improved patient experience and sense of agency. Our findings join a diverse body of converging evidence in support of policy changes allowing for more flexible dosing and individualized OTP care.

Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and risk of long COVID symptoms: a retrospective cohort study.

We conducted a retrospective cohort study to assess whether treatment with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was associated with a reduced risk of long COVID. We enrolled 500 adults with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 who were eligible for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir; 250 who took nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and 250 who did not. The primary outcome was the development of one or more of eleven prespecified long COVID symptoms, assessed through a structured telephone interview four months after the positive SARS-CoV-2 test. Multivariable logistic regression models controlled for age, sex, race/ethnicity, chronic conditions, and COVID-19 vaccination status. We found that participants who took nirmatrelvir/ritonavir were no less likely to develop long COVID symptoms, compared to those who did not take the medication (44% vs. 49.6%, p = 0.21). Taking nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was associated with a lower odds of two of the eleven long COVID symptoms, brain fog (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.38-0.88) and chest pain/tightness (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.28-0.91). Our finding that treatment with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was not associated with a lower risk of developing long COVID is different from prior studies that obtained data only from electronic medical records.

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.

Cannabis dispensary staff approaches to counseling on potential contraindications to cannabis use: insights from a national self-report survey.

BACKGROUND: Legal cannabis is available in more than half of the United States. Health care professionals (HCPs) rarely give recommendations on dosing or safety of cannabis due to limits imposed by policy and lack of knowledge. Customer-facing cannabis dispensary staff, including clinicians (pharmacists, nurses, physician's assistants), communicate these recommendations in the absence of HCP recommendations. Little is known about how dispensary staff approach individuals with complex medical and psychiatric comorbidities. Using responses from a national survey, we describe how cannabis dispensary staff counsel customers with medical and psychiatric comorbidities on cannabis use and examine whether state-specific cannabis policy is associated with advice given to customers. METHODS: National, cross-sectional online survey study from February 13, 2020 to October 2, 2020 of dispensary staff at dispensaries that sell delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol containing products. Measures include responses to survey questions about how they approach customers with medical and psychiatric comorbidities; state medicalization score (scale 0-100; higher score indicates more similarity to regulation of traditional pharmacies); legalized adult-use cannabis (yes/no). We conducted multiple mixed effects multivariable logistic regression analyses to understand relationships between state medicalization and dispensary employees' perspectives. RESULTS: Of 434 eligible respondents, most were budtenders (40%) or managers (32%), and a minority were clinicians (18%). State medicalization score was not associated with responses to most survey questions. It was associated with increased odds of encouraging customers with medical comorbidities to inform their traditional HCP of cannabis use (Odds ratio [OR]=1.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0-1.4, p=0.03) and reduced odds of recommending cannabis for individuals with cannabis use disorder (CUD) (OR=0.8, 95% CI 0.7-1.0, p=0.04). Working in a state with legalized adult-use cannabis was associated with recommending traditional health care instead of cannabis in those with serious mental illness (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.1-4.7, p=0.04). Less than half of respondents believed they had encountered CUD (49%), and over a quarter did not believe cannabis is addictive (26%). CONCLUSIONS: When managing cannabis dosing and safety in customers with medical and psychiatric comorbidity, dispensary staff preferred involving individuals' traditional HCPs. Dispensary staff were skeptical of cannabis being addictive. While state regulations of dispensaries may impact the products individuals have access to, they were not associated with recommendations that dispensary staff gave to customers. Alternative explanations for dispensary recommendations may include regional or store-level variation not captured in this analysis.

Addiction Consult Service and Inpatient Outcomes Among Patients with Alcohol Use Disorder.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is the most prevalent substance use disorder, but evidence-based medications to treat AUD (MAUD), including naltrexone and acamprosate, are substantially underutilized. Hospitalization provides an opportunity to start MAUD for patients who may not otherwise seek treatment. Addiction consultation services (ACSs) have been increasingly utilized to ensure appropriate treatment. There is little research examining the effect of an ACS on health outcomes among patients with AUD. OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between an ACS consultation and provision of MAUD during admission and MAUD at discharge among admissions with AUD. DESIGN: Retrospective study comparing admissions which received an ACS consult and propensity score-matched historical control admissions. Subjects A total of 215 admissions with a primary or secondary diagnosis of AUD who received an ACS consult and 215 matched historical control admissions. Intervention ACS consultation from a multidisciplinary team offering withdrawal management, substance use disorder treatment, patient-centered counseling, discharge planning, and linkage to outpatient care for patients with substance use disorders, including AUD. Main Measures Primary outcomes were initiation of new MAUD during admission and new MAUD at discharge. Secondary outcomes were patient-directed discharge, time to 7- and 30-day readmission, and time to 7- and 30-day post-discharge ER visit. Key Results Among 430 admissions with AUD, those that received an ACS consultation were significantly more likely to receive new inpatient MAUD (33.0% vs 0.9%; OR 52.5 [CI 12.6-218.6]) and significantly more likely to receive new MAUD at discharge (41.4% vs 1.9%; OR 37.3 [13.3-104.6]), compared with historical controls. ACS was not significantly associated with patient-directed discharge, time to readmission, or time to post-discharge ER visit. CONCLUSIONS: ACS was associated with a large increase in provision of new inpatient MAUD and new MAUD at discharge when compared to propensity-matched historical controls.

Factors Associated with Medical Cannabis Use After Certification: A Three-Month Longitudinal Study.

Background: Over the past decade, there has been increased utilization of medical cannabis (MC) in the United States. Few studies have described sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with MC use after certification and more specifically, factors associated with use of MC products with different cannabinoid profiles. Methods: We conducted a longitudinal cohort study of adults (N=225) with chronic or severe pain on opioids who were newly certified for MC in New York State and enrolled in the study between November 2018 and January 2022. We collected data over participants' first 3 months in the study, from web-based assessment of MC use every 2 weeks (unit of analysis). We used generalized estimating equation models to examine associations of sociodemographic and clinical factors with (1) MC use (vs. no MC use) and (2) use of MC products with different cannabinoid profiles. Results: On average, 29% of the participants used predominantly high delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) MC products within the first 3 months of follow-up, 30% used other MC products, and 41% did not use MC products. Non-Hispanic White race, pain at multiple sites, and past 30-day sedative use were associated with a higher likelihood of MC use (vs. no MC use). Current tobacco use, unregulated cannabis use, and enrollment in the study during the COVID-19 pandemic were associated with a lower likelihood of MC use (vs. no MC use). Among participants reporting MC use, female gender and older age were associated with a lower likelihood of using predominantly high-THC MC products (vs. other MC products). Conclusion: White individuals were more likely to use MC after certification, which may be owing to access and cost issues. The findings that sedative use was associated with greater MC use, but tobacco and unregulated cannabis were associated with less MC use, may imply synergism and substitution that warrant further research. From the policy perspective, additional measures are needed to ensure equitable availability of and access to MC. Health practitioners should check patients' history and current use of sedative, tobacco, and unregulated cannabis before providing an MC recommendation and counsel patients on safe cannabis use. clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03268551).

"It doesn't make any sense to even try": the disruptive impact of COVID-19's first wave on people with chronic pain using medical cannabis in New York.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted health care but it is unknown how it impacted the lives of people using medical cannabis for chronic pain. OBJECTIVE: To understand the experiences of individuals from the Bronx, NY, who had chronic pain and were certified to use medical cannabis during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted 1:1 semi-structured qualitative telephone interviews from March through May 2020 with a convenience sample of 14 individuals enrolled in a longitudinal cohort study. We purposively recruited participants with both frequent and infrequent patterns of cannabis use. Interviews addressed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on daily life, symptoms, medical cannabis purchase, and use. We conducted a thematic analysis, with a codebook approach, to identify and describe prominent themes. RESULTS: Participants' median age was 49 years, nine were female, four were Hispanic, four were non-Hispanic White, and four were non-Hispanic Black. We identified three themes: (1) disrupted access to health services, (2) disrupted access to medical cannabis due to the pandemic, and (3) mixed impact of chronic pain on social isolation and mental health. Due to increased barriers to health care in general and to medical cannabis specifically, participants reduced medical cannabis use, stopped use, or substituted medical cannabis with unregulated cannabis. Living with chronic pain both prepared participants for the pandemic and made the pandemic more difficult. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic amplified pre-existing challenges and barriers to care, including to medical cannabis, among people with chronic pain. Understanding pandemic-era barriers may inform policies in ongoing and future public health emergencies.

Training the next generation of learning health system scientists.

Introduction: The learning health system (LHS) aligns science, informatics, incentives, stakeholders, and culture for continuous improvement and innovation. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute designed a K12 initiative to grow the number of LHS scientists. We describe approaches developed by 11 funded centers of excellence (COEs) to promote partnerships between scholars and health system leaders and to provide mentored research training. Methods: Since 2018, the COEs have enlisted faculty, secured institutional resources, partnered with health systems, developed and implemented curricula, recruited scholars, and provided mentored training. Program directors for each COE provided descriptive data on program context, scholar characteristics, stakeholder engagement, scholar experiences with health system partnerships, roles following program completion, and key training challenges. Results: To date, the 11 COEs have partnered with health systems to train 110 scholars. Nine (82%) programs partner with a Veterans Affairs health system and 9 (82%) partner with safety net providers. Clinically trained scholars (n = 87; 79%) include 70 physicians and 17 scholars in other clinical disciplines. Non-clinicians (n = 29; 26%) represent diverse fields, dominated by population health sciences. Stakeholder engagement helps scholars understand health system and patient/family needs and priorities, enabling opportunities to conduct embedded research, improve outcomes, and grow skills in translating research methods and findings into practice. Challenges include supporting scholars through roadblocks that threaten to derail projects during their limited program time, ranging from delays in access to data to COVID-19-related impediments and shifts in organizational priorities. Conclusions: Four years into this novel training program, there is evidence of scholars' accomplishments, both in traditional academic terms and in terms of moving along career trajectories that hold the potential to lead and accelerate transformational health system change. Future LHS training efforts should focus on sustainability, including organizational support for scholar activities.

U.S. state policies on opioid prescribing during the peak of the prescription opioid crisis: Associations with opioid overdose mortality.

BACKGROUND: In response to the opioid overdose crisis in the United States, many states implemented policies to guide opioid prescribing, but their impact on overdose mortality (prescription and non-prescription) remains poorly understood. We examined the impact of U.S. state opioid-prescribing policies on opioid overdose mortality following implementation. METHODS: We calculated opioid overdose mortality rates from 1999-2016 by U.S. state using the CDC WONDER database, overall and separately for overdose deaths from prescription and non-prescription opioids. For each state, policies active on 1/1/2014 were reviewed for the presence and strength of six provisions recommending judicious opioid prescribing practices; "strong" provisions used the words "should," "shall," or "must". Interrupted time series (ITS) tested the association of each strong provision with overdose mortality, overall and separately for prescription and non-prescription opioids, in the two years following implementation. Sensitivity analyses compared between states, used time-lagged analyses, and excluded synthetic opioids from non-prescription opioid deaths. RESULTS: All six provisions had consistent direction of effect in ITS and sensitivity analyses. Strong provisions for prescriber training and limits on opioid dose reduced the slope of overall and prescription opioid overdose mortality in both ITS and sensitivity analyses. Reduced non-prescription opioid overdose mortality was only associated with strong provision for prescriber training. Some provisions had a negative impact. In ITS, strong provision for prescriber response to misuse increased the slope of non-prescription opioid overdose mortality. Strong provision for mandatory prescription drug monitoring program use had no relationship with overdose mortality in ITS and was associated with increased overall, prescription and non-prescription opioid overdose mortality in between-state sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSION: Opioid prescribing policies in U.S. states at the peak of the prescription opioid epidemic had modest mortality benefit, and did not reduce non-prescription opioid overdose mortality. A strong provision for prescriber training was the only provision associated with reduced prescription and non-prescription opioid overdose mortality. These findings can inform future efforts addressing prescription drug epidemics.

Increasing Access to Safe Medical Cannabis: Establishment of a Medical Cannabis Program in a Safety-Net Academic Medical Center.

Despite numerous challenges, Montefiore Medical Center in New York City implemented a program aimed at providing comprehensive, evidence-based medical cannabis certifications to patients, including those who have been historically disenfranchised, and shares insights from five years of operation.

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.

Non-crisis related pain occurs in adult patients with sickle cell disease despite chronic red blood cell exchange transfusion therapy.

BACKGROUND: Chronic red blood cell transfusions reduce acute care utilization for sickle cell disease (SCD) pain. However, little is known about whether chronic transfusions treat or prevent the development of non-crisis pain. We investigated patient-report of pain in adults with SCD receiving chronic exchange transfusions (CET) compared to adults not on CET with similar disease characteristics. STUDY METHOD AND DESIGN: Eleven participants receiving chronic exchange transfusion (CET) for at least one year were compared to 33 participants not receiving CET. Participants completed validated patient-reported outcomes regarding pain impact and quality of life at regularly scheduled visits or before CET. One year of health care utilization and opioid prescriptions were examined. RESULTS: After 1:1 propensity matching was performed for age, genotype, WBC and neutrophil counts, patients on CET had lower Pain Impact scores (-5.1, p = 0.03) and higher Neuropathic (7.4, p < 0.001) and Nociceptive Pain Quality (3.7, p < 0.001) scores, all indicating worse pain. However, CET was associated with a reduction in annual all cause admissions (-3.1, p < 0.001), length of stay (-2.1 days, p < 0.001) and ED visits (-2.7, p < 0.001). CET was not associated with differences in opioids dispensed. CONCLUSIONS: After adjusting for disease characteristics, CET was associated with worse pain impact and neuropathic and nociceptive pain quality, lower health care utilization and with similar levels of opioids dispensed. This data suggest that CET may reduce hospitalizations for acute pain but may not adequately treat nociceptive or neuropathic pain in SCD.