Healthcare provider perceptions and reported practices regarding opioid prescription for patients with chronic cancer pain.

PURPOSE: Data indicates that clinicians might be under-prescribing opioids for patients with chronic cancer pain, and this could impact adequate pain management. Few studies have sought to understand healthcare provider (HCP) perceptions and practices regarding the prescription of opioids for chronic cancer pain. We assessed HCP perceptions and practices regarding opioid prescription for patients with chronic cancer pain since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: An anonymous cross-sectional survey was conducted among 186 HCPs who attended an opioid educational event in April 2021 and 2022. RESULTS: Sixty-one out of 143 (44%) opioid prescribers reported reluctance to prescribe opioids for chronic cancer pain. In a multivariate logistic model, younger participants (log OR - 0.04, 95% CI - 0.085, - 0.004; p = 0.033) and pain medicine clinicians (log OR - 1.89, CI - 3.931, - 0.286; p = 0.034) were less reluctant, whereas providers who worry about non-medical opioid use were more reluctant to prescribe opioids (log OR 1.58 95% CI 0.77-2.43; p < 0.001). Fifty-three out of 143 (37%) prescribers had experienced increased challenges regarding opioid dispensing at pharmacies, and 84/179 (47%) of all respondents reported similar experience by their patients. Fifty-four out of 178(30%) were aware of opioid-related harmful incidents to patients or their families, including incidents attributed to opioid misuse by a household or family member. CONCLUSION: A considerable number of opioid prescribers were reluctant to prescribe opioids for patients with chronic cancer pain. Many reported challenges regarding dispensing of opioids at the pharmacies. These may be unintended consequences of policies to address the opioid crisis. Future measures should focus on addressing regulatory barriers without undermining the gains already made to combat the opioid crisis.

Healthcare provider perceptions and reported practices regarding opioid prescription for patients with chronic pain.

PURPOSE: Data indicates that clinicians might be under-prescribing opioids for patients with chronic cancer pain, and this could impact adequate chronic pain management. Few studies have sought to understand healthcare provider (HCP) perceptions and practices regarding the prescription of opioids for chronic pain. We assessed HCP perceptions and practices regarding opioid prescription for patients with chronic pain since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: An anonymous cross-sectional survey was conducted among 186 HCPs who attended an opioid educational event in April 2021 and 2022. RESULTS: 61/143(44%) opioid prescribers reported reluctance to prescribe opioids for chronic pain. In a multivariate logistic model, younger participants (log OR -0.04, 95% CI: -0.085, -0.004; p = 0.033) and pain medicine clinicians (log OR -1.89, CI: -3.931, -0.286; p = 0.034) were less reluctant, whereas providers who worry about non-medical opioid use (NMOU) were more reluctant to prescribe opioids (log OR 1.58 95% CI: 0.77-2.43; p < 0.001). 53/143(37%) respondents had experienced increased challenges regarding opioid dispensing at pharmacies, and 84/179(47%) reported similar experience by their patients. 54/178(30%) HCPs were aware of opioid-related harmful incidents to patients or their families, including incidents attributed to opioid misuse by a household or family member. CONCLUSION: A significant number of opioid prescribers were reluctant to prescribe opioids for patients with chronic pain. Many reported challenges regarding dispensing of opioids at the pharmacies. These may be unintended consequences of policies to address the opioid crisis. Future measures should focus on addressing regulatory barriers without undermining the gains already made to combat the opioid crisis.

Assessing risk for nonmedical opioid use among patients with cancer: Stability of the CAGE-AID questionnaire across clinical care settings.

OBJECTIVES: The Cut down, Annoyed, Guilty, and Eye opener- Adapted to Include Drugs (CAGE-AID) questionnaire (CA) is a validated screening tool used to assess risk for nonmedical opioid use (NMOU) in patients receiving opioids for cancer pain. Data on consistencies and variations in responses to the CA between different clinical settings are lacking. We evaluated the frequency and consistency in scoring of the CA among patients seen between the first inpatient consult (T1) and the first outpatient follow-up (T2) visits. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of 333 consecutive patients seen at both T1 and T2 within 3 months between August 2016 and March 2017 was reviewed. RESULTS: Median age was 58 years (range, 18-87 years); 53% were female. CA was completed for 88% of patients at T1 and 94% at T2. Of these, 10% and 13% were CAGE-AID positive, respectively. CA score changed from negative to positive in 4% and from positive to negative in 1% of patients between T1 and T2. Kappa coefficient for agreement of CA between T1 and T2 was 0.74 (95% CI: 0.62-0.86, p = 0.02). SIGNIFICANT OF RESULTS: Completion rate and consistency of patient responses to the CA were high irrespective of clinical setting. Of these patients, 10% and 13% were CA positive which is suggestive of high risk for NMOU. Further studies are needed to evaluate ways to ensure more consistency in the completion of the CA and enhance its utilization in routine clinical practice.

Health Care Provider Attitudes and Beliefs Toward Nonmedical Opioid Use in Patients with Cancer Pain.

Background: Data on health care providers' (HCPs') perceptions about patients with cancer pain and nonmedical opioid use (NMOU) are lacking. We examined the perceptions and attitudes of HCPs and assessed the usefulness of an interdisciplinary opioid stewardship program (OSP) while caring for these patients. Methods: An anonymous cross-sectional survey was conducted among the supportive care HCPs between September and November 2021. Results: Of 85 HCPs, 64 responded (75%) to the survey. Participants perceived that NMOU is underdiagnosed (42/64; 67%), and caring for such patients is difficult (58/64, 91%) and time consuming (54/64, 87%). A majority (50/51, 98%) were aware of the OSP, and (48/51; 94%) found it helpful. Conclusion: HCPs reported that NMOU is underdiagnosed and is challenging to manage. They endorsed the utility of an OSP in managing patients with concurrent cancer pain and NMOU. Future research should identify ways to standardize care and integrate OSP in routine supportive oncology practice.

Interdisciplinary intervention for the management of nonmedical opioid use among patients with cancer pain.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have assessed interventions aimed at managing nonmedical opioid use (NMOU) behavior among patients with cancer. The authors developed the Compassionate High-Alert Team (CHAT) intervention to manage patients receiving opioids for cancer pain who demonstrate NMOU behavior. The objective of this study was to determine the change in frequency of NMOU behaviors, pain intensity, and opioid requirements among those who received the intervention. METHODS: A total of 130 patients receiving opioids for cancer pain that had documented evidence of NMOU and received the CHAT intervention were reviewed. Demographic and clinical information such as NMOU behaviors, pain scores, and morphine equivalent daily dose at baseline, 3, and 6 months post-intervention was obtained. RESULTS: NMOU behaviors significantly decreased from a median (interquartile range) of 2 (1-3) at baseline to 0 (0-1) at both 3 and 6 months post-intervention (p < .001). A total of 45 of 75 (60%) and 31 of 50 (62%) of CHAT recipients achieved complete response to the intervention at 3 and 6 months, respectively. Higher baseline number of NMOU behaviors was independently associated with patient response to the intervention (odds ratio [OR], 1.97; 95% confidence interval [CI],1.09-4.28, p = .049 at 3 months; OR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.20-6.47, p = .03 at 6 months). The median pain score decreased from 7 at baseline to 6 at both 3 and 6 months (p = .01). Morphine equivalent daily dose did not significantly change during that same period (143 mg/day vs. 139 mg/day, p = .13). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients who received the CHAT intervention improved in their NMOU behaviors and pain intensity scores 3 and 6 months post-intervention. These preliminary findings support the efficacy of CHAT in managing patients receiving opioids for cancer pain who demonstrate NMOU behavior.

Frequency of and Factors Associated With Nonmedical Opioid Use Behavior Among Patients With Cancer Receiving Opioids for Cancer Pain.

IMPORTANCE: One of the main aims of research on nonmedical opioid use (NMOU) is to reduce the frequency of NMOU behaviors through interventions such as universal screening, reduced opioid exposure, and more intense follow-up of patients with elevated risk. The absence of data on the frequency of NMOU behavior is the major barrier to conducting research on NMOU. OBJECTIVE: To determine the overall frequency of and the independent predictors for NMOU behavior. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this prognostic study, 3615 patients with cancer were referred to the supportive care center at MD Anderson Cancer Center from March 18, 2016, to June 6, 2018. Patients were eligible for inclusion if they had cancer and were taking opioids for cancer pain for at least 1 week. Patients were excluded if they had no follow-up within 3 months of initial consultation, did not complete the appropriate questionnaire, or did not have scheduled opioid treatments. After exclusion, a total of 1554 consecutive patients were assessed for NMOU behavior using established diagnostic criteria. All patients were assessed using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale, the Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain (SOAPP), and the Cut Down, Annoyed, Guilty, Eye Opener-Adapted to Include Drugs (CAGE-AID) survey. Data were analyzed from January 6 to September 25, 2020. RESULTS: A total of 1554 patients (median [interquartile range (IQR)] age, 61 [IQR, 52-69] years; 816 women [52.5%]; 1124 White patients [72.3%]) were evaluable for the study, and 299 patients (19.2%) had 1 or more NMOU behaviors. The median (IQR) number of NMOU behaviors per patient was 1 (IQR, 1-3). A total of 576 of 745 NMOU behaviors (77%) occurred by the first 2 follow-up visits. The most frequent NMOU behavior was unscheduled clinic visits for inappropriate refills (218 of 745 [29%]). Eighty-eight of 299 patients (29.4%) scored 7 or higher on SOAPP, and 48 (16.6%) scored at least 2 out of 4 points on the CAGE-AID survey. Results from the multivariate model suggest that marital status (single, hazard ratio [HR], 1.58; 95% CI, 1.15-2.18; P = .005; divorced, HR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.01-2.03; P = .04), SOAPP score (positive vs negative, HR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.04-1.74; P = .02), morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD) (HR, 1.003; 95% CI, 1.002-1.004; P < .001), and Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale pain level (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.06-1.16; P < .001) were independently associated with the presence of NMOU behavior. In recursive partition analysis, single marital status, MEDD greater than 50 mg, and SOAPP scores greater than 7 were associated with a higher risk (56%) for the presence of NMOU behavior. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This prognostic study of patients with cancer taking opioids for cancer pain found that 19% of patients developed NMOU behavior within a median duration of 8 weeks after initial supportive care clinic consultation. Marital status (single or divorced), SOAPP score greater than 7, higher levels of pain severity, and MEDD level were independently associated with NMOU behavior. This information will assist clinicians and investigators designing clinical and research programs in this important field.

Health Care Provider Attitudes, Beliefs, and Perceived Confidence in Managing Patients With Cancer Pain and Nonmedical Opioid Use.

CONTEXT: Health care provider education is an effective strategy to improve knowledge and competencies in opioid-prescribing practices. However, there are very few studies regarding this among providers of patients with cancer pain and nonmedical opioid use (NMOU). The aim of our study was to assess participants' attitudes, beliefs, and self-perceived confidence in caring for patients with cancer pain and NMOU before and after attending an opioid educational seminar on the use and nonmedical use of opioids in patients with cancer. METHODS: An anonymous cross-sectional survey was conducted among health care providers who attended an opioid educational event in April 2018 and May 2019. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 63% (129 of 206). Approximately 72% of participants had concerns about NMOU in patients with cancer, 69% felt that such patients are frequently underdetected, and 63% felt that cancer pain is frequently undertreated. At baseline, only 23% reported adequate knowledge and 35% reported confidence in caring for patients with cancer with NMOU-related issues. Among those who completed both the preseminar and postseminar surveys, these numbers improved significantly at the end of the seminar (26% vs. 71% and 43% vs. 84%, respectively; all P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Most health care providers expressed concerns about underdetection of NMOU and undertreatment of pain among patients with cancer. Many self-reported knowledge and confidence deficits in caring for patients with cancer with NMOU. Seminar participation was associated with an increase in the number of participants with self-perceived knowledge and confidence. Future studies are needed to ascertain the impact of such opioid educational events on patient care practices.

The development of a nomogram to determine the frequency of elevated risk for non-medical opioid use in cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: Non-medical opioid use (NMOU) is a growing crisis. Cancer patients at elevated risk of NMOU (+risk) are frequently underdiagnosed. The aim of this paper was to develop a nomogram to predict the probability of +risk among cancer patients receiving outpatient supportive care consultation at a comprehensive cancer center. METHOD: 3,588 consecutive patients referred to a supportive care clinic were reviewed. All patients had a diagnosis of cancer and were on opioids for pain. All patients were assessed using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain (SOAPP-14), and CAGE-AID (Cut Down-Annoyed-Guilty-Eye Opener) questionnaires. "+risk" was defined as an SOAPP-14 score of ≥7. A nomogram was devised based on the risk factors determined by the multivariate logistic regression model to estimate the probability of +risk. RESULTS: 731/3,588 consults were +risk. +risk was significantly associated with gender, race, marital status, smoking status, depression, anxiety, financial distress, MEDD (morphine equivalent daily dose), and CAGE-AID score. The C-index was 0.8. A nomogram was developed and can be accessed at https://is.gd/soappnomogram. For example, for a male Hispanic patient, married, never smoked, with ESAS scores for depression = 3, anxiety = 3, financial distress = 7, a CAGE score of 0, and an MEDD score of 20, the total score is 9 + 9+0 + 0+6 + 10 + 23 + 0+1 = 58. A nomogram score of 58 indicates the probability of +risk of 0.1. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: We established a practical nomogram to assess the +risk. The application of a nomogram based on routinely collected clinical data can help clinicians establish patients with +risk and positively impact care planning.

Random urine drug testing among patients receiving opioid therapy for cancer pain.

BACKGROUND: There is limited information regarding the true frequency of nonmedical opioid use (NMOU) among patients receiving opioid therapy for cancer pain. Data to guide patient selection for urine drug testing (UDT) as well as the timing and frequency of ordering UDT are insufficient. This study examined the frequency of abnormal UDT among patients with cancer who underwent random UDT and their characteristics. METHODS: Demographic and clinical information for patients with cancer who underwent random UDT were retrospectively reviewed and compared with a historical cohort that underwent targeted UDT. Random UDT was ordered regardless of a patient's risk potential for NMOU. Targeted UDT was ordered on the basis of a physician's estimation of a patient's risk for NMOU. RESULTS: In all, 552 of 573 eligible patients (96%) underwent random UDT. Among these patients, 130 (24%) had 1 or more abnormal results; 38 of the 88 patients (43%) who underwent targeted UDT had 1 or more abnormal results. When marijuana was excluded, 15% of the random group and 37% of the targeted group had abnormal UDT findings (P < .001). It took a shorter time from the initial consultation to detect 1 or more abnormalities with the random test than the targeted test (median, 130 vs 274 days; P = .02). Abnormal random UDT was independently associated with younger age (P < .0001), male sex (P = .03), Cut Down, Annoyed, Guilty, and Eye Opener-Adapted to Include Drugs positivity (P = .001), and higher Edmonton Symptom Assessment System anxiety (P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 1 in 4 patients receiving opioids for cancer pain at a supportive care clinic who underwent random UDT had 1 or more abnormalities. Random UDT detected abnormalities earlier than the targeted test. These findings suggest that random UDT is justified among patients with cancer pain.

Concurrent use of opioids with benzodiazepines or nonbenzodiazepine sedatives among patients with cancer referred to an outpatient palliative care clinic.

BACKGROUND: The concurrent use of opioids with benzodiazepines (BZD) or nonbenzodiazepine sedatives (S) recently was found to be associated with an increased risk of overdose death compared with the use of opioids alone. In the current study, the authors examined the frequency and trend of concurrent opioid/BZD-S use and its associated risk factors among patients with cancer. METHODS: Data regarding the frequency and trend of concurrent opioid/BZD-S use were extracted for 1500 randomly selected patients referred to the outpatient palliative care clinic at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center between the calendar years of 2011 and 2016. To explore associated risk factors, the authors compared the demographic and clinical predictors of 418 patients each in the concurrent opioid/BZD-S group and opioids-only group. RESULTS: In 2011, at the time of referral to the palliative care clinic, 96 of 221 patients with cancer (43%) were prescribed concurrent opioids/BZD-S. This rate progressively declined to 67 of 217 patients (31%) by 2016 (P = .0008). Patients in the concurrent opioid/BZD-S group had a higher percentage of females (233 individuals; 55% [P = .007]) and whites (323 individuals; 77% [P = .002]), and patients reported higher scores regarding depression (P = .0001), anxiety (P ≤ .0001), drowsiness (P = .048), and worst feeling of well-being (P = .001). The morphine equivalent daily dose was significantly higher in concurrent opioid/BZD-S group (median of 67.5 mg/day [interquartile range (IQR), 30-135 mg/day] vs 60 mg/day [IQR, 30-105 mg/day]; P = .034). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that anxiety (P ≤ .0001), white race (P = .0092), and poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (P = .0017) were significantly associated with concurrent use. CONCLUSIONS: The concurrent use of opioids with BZD-S has declined but continues to be frequent among patients with cancer. Anxiety, white race, and poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status were associated with its use. More research is needed to explore which medications can replace these agents.

Managing Cancer Pain in Patients with Opioid and Substance Use Disorders.

OBJECTIVE: To discuss the assessment and management of pain in patients with substance use disorders. DATA SOURCES: Peer-reviewed articles, book chapters, internet sources. CONCLUSION: Patients should be routinely assessed for SUDs. Pain management should be stratified according to patient risk. An interdisciplinary approach is essential. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: Oncology nurses should be aware of assessment approaches to screen and monitor patients with SUDs. Oncology nurses are an essential part of the interdisciplinary team when monitoring patients with SUDs.

Predicting the risk for aberrant opioid use behavior in patients receiving outpatient supportive care consultation at a comprehensive cancer center.

BACKGROUND: Opioid misuse is a growing crisis. Patients with cancer who are at risk of aberrant drug behaviors are frequently underdiagnosed. The primary objective of this study was to determine the frequency and factors predicting a risk for aberrant opioid and drug use behaviors (ADB) among patients who received an outpatient supportive care consultation at a comprehensive cancer center. In addition, the screening performance of the Cut Down-Annoyed-Guilty-Eye Opener (CAGE) questionnaire adapted to include drug use (CAGE-AID) was compared with that of the 14-item Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients With Pain (SOAPP-14) tool as instruments for identifying patients at risk for ADB. METHODS: In total, 751 consecutive patients with cancer who were referred to a supportive care clinic were reviewed. Patients were eligible if they had diagnosis of cancer and had received opioids for pain for at least 1 week. All patients were assessed using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), the SOAPP-14, and the CAGE-AID. SOAPP scores ≥7 (SOAPP-positive) were used to identify patients who were at risk of ADB. RESULTS: Among the 729 of 751 (97%) evaluable consults, 143 (19.6%) were SOAPP-positive, and 73 (10.5%) were CAGE-AID-positive. Multivariate analysis revealed that the odds ratio of a positive SOAPP score was 2.3 for patients who had positive CAGE-AID scores (P < .0001), 2.08 for men (P = .0013), 1.10 per point for ESAS pain (P = .014), 1.13 per point for ESAS anxiety (P = .0015), and 1.09 per point for ESAS financial distress (P = .012). A CAGE-AID cutoff score of 1 in 4 had 43.3% sensitivity and 90.93% specificity for screening patients with a high risk of ADB. CONCLUSIONS: The current results indicate a high frequency of an elevated risk of ADB among patients with cancer. Men and patients who have anxiety, financial distress, and a prior history of alcoholism/illicit drug use are at increased risk of ADB.

Outcomes of a Specialized Interdisciplinary Approach for Patients with Cancer with Aberrant Opioid-Related Behavior.

BACKGROUND: Data on the development and outcomes of effective interventions to address aberrant opioid-related behavior (AB) in patients with cancer are lacking. Our outpatient supportive care clinic developed and implemented a specialized interdisciplinary team approach to manage patients with AB. The purpose of this study was to report clinical outcomes of this novel intervention. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The medical records of 30 consecutive patients with evidence of AB who received the intervention and a random control group of 70 patients without evidence of AB between January 1, 2015, and August 31, 2016, were reviewed. RESULTS: At baseline, pain intensity (p = .002) and opioid dose (p = .001) were significantly higher among patients with AB. During the course of the study, the median number of ABs per month significantly decreased from three preintervention to 0.4 postintervention (p < .0001). The median morphine equivalent daily dose decreased from 165 mg/day at the first intervention visit to 112 mg/day at the last follow-up (p = .018), although pain intensity did not significantly change (p = .984). "Request for opioid medication refills in the clinic earlier than the expected time" was the AB with the highest frequency prior to the intervention and the greatest improvement during the study period. Younger age (p < .0001) and higher Edmonton Symptom Assessment System anxiety score (p = .005) were independent predictors of the presence of AB. CONCLUSION: The intervention was associated with a reduction in the frequency of AB and opioid utilization among patients with cancer receiving chronic opioid therapy. More research is needed to further characterize the clinical effectiveness of this intervention. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: There are currently no well-defined and evidence-based strategies to manage cancer patients on chronic opioid therapy who demonstrate aberrant opioid-related behavior. The findings of this study offer a promising starting point for the creation of a standardized strategy for clinicians and provides valuable information to guide their practice regarding these patients. The study results will also help clinicians to better understand the types and frequencies of the most common aberrant behaviors observed among patients with cancer who are receiving chronic opioid therapy. This will enhance the process of timely patient identification, management, or referral to the appropriate specialist teams.

Opioid Prescription Trends Among Patients With Cancer Referred to Outpatient Palliative Care Over a 6-Year Period.

INTRODUCTION: In the United States, opioid regulations have become increasingly stringent in recent years. Increased regulatory scrutiny, in part, is related to heightened awareness through literature and a recent media blitz on the opioid prescription epidemic. These regulations have the potential to impact prescription trends by health care providers. Our objective was to evaluate changes in the type and dose of opioid prescriptions among patients who are referred by oncologists to an outpatient palliative care clinic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the electronic health records of 750 patients who were seen as new consultations at MD Anderson Cancer Center's outpatient palliative care clinic between January 1 and April 30 each year from 2010 through 2015. Data collected included demographics, cancer type and stage, symptom assessment, performance status, opioid type, and opioid dose defined as the morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD). RESULTS: Median age was 59 years (interquartile range [IQR], 51 to 67), 383 (51%) were female, 529 (70%) were white, and 654 (87%)of patients had advanced cancer. In 2010, median MEDD before referral was 78 mg/d (IQR, 30 to 150); however, by 2015, the MEDD had progressively decreased to 40 mg/d (IQR, 19 to 80; P = .001). Hydrocodone was the most common opioid prescribed between 2010 and 2015; however, after its reclassification as a schedule II opioid in October 2014, the use of tramadol, a schedule IV opioid, increased ( P < .001). CONCLUSION: During the past several years, the MEDD prescribed by referring oncologists has decreased. After hydrocodone reclassification, the use of tramadol with less stringent prescription limits has increased.

Frequency, predictors, and outcomes of urine drug testing among patients with advanced cancer on chronic opioid therapy at an outpatient supportive care clinic.

BACKGROUND: Data are limited on the use and outcomes of urine drug tests (UDTs) among patients with advanced cancer. The main objective of this study was to determine the factors associated with UDT ordering and results in outpatients with advanced cancer. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted of 1058 patients who attended an outpatient supportive care clinic from March 2014 to November 2015. Sixty-one patients who were receiving chronic opioid therapy and underwent UDTs were identified. A control group of 120 patients who did not undergo UDTs was selected for comparison. RESULTS: Sixty-one of 1058 patients (6%) underwent UDTs, and 33 of 61 patients (54%) had abnormal results. Multivariate analysis indicated that the odds ratio for UDT ordering was 3.9 in patients who had positive Cut Down, Annoyed, Guilty, and Eye Opener (CAGE) questionnaire results (P = .002), 4.41 in patients aged < 45 years (P < .001), 5.58 in patients who had moderate-to-severe pain (Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale pain scores ≥4; P < .001), 0.27 in patients with advanced-stage cancer, (P = .008), and 0.25 in patients who had moderate-to-severe fatigue (P = .001). Among 52 abnormal UDT results in 33 patients, the most common opioid findings were prescribed opioids absent in urine (14 of 52 tests; 27%) and unprescribed opioids in urine (13 of 52 tests; 25%). CONCLUSIONS: UDTs were used infrequently among outpatients with advanced cancer who were receiving chronic opioid therapy. Younger age, positive CAGE questionnaire results, early stage cancer or no evidence of disease status, higher pain intensity, and lower fatigue scores were significant predictors of UDT ordering. More than 50% of UDT results were abnormal. More research is necessary to better characterize aberrant opioid use in patients with advanced cancer. Cancer 2016;122:3732-9. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Aberrant Opioid Use and Urine Drug Testing in Outpatient Palliative Care.

Aberrant opioid use is a public health issue, which has not been adequately described in the palliative care literature. With the increasing integration of palliative care into oncologic care, palliative care clinicians are seeing patients earlier in the disease trajectory, and therefore, more outpatients with chronic pain requiring chronic opioid therapy. This may have resulted in a concomitant rise in the number of patients with aberrant opioid use. In this article, we report on two patients with aberrant opioid-related behavior seen at our palliative care clinic. A high suspicion of opioid abuse, misuse, or diversion based on certain behavioral cues necessitated the ordering of a urine drug test (UDT). The tests helped the medical team to confirm an already existing pattern of maladaptive opioid use. In both cases, we provided ample opioid education and implemented effective strategies to address their aberrant opioid use. These cases suggest the need for palliative care clinicians to develop strategies to effectively address this issue in our field of medicine. It also highlights the usefulness of UDT in the outpatient palliative care setting.

The frequency and factors associated with the use of a dedicated Supportive Care Center Telephone Triaging Program in patients with advanced cancer at a comprehensive cancer center.

CONTEXT: There is limited literature on characteristics of telephone triage programs and the nature of interventions in palliative care. OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to determine frequency and type of care provided by a Supportive Care Center Telephone Triaging Program (SCCTP) in advanced cancer patients (ACPs). METHODS: Electronic medical records were reviewed of 400 consecutive ACPs referred to palliative care at a comprehensive cancer center and given access to the SCCTP: 200 from the outpatient (OP) supportive care center and 200 from inpatient (IP) palliative care given access after discharge. We reviewed call frequency, type, reason, and outcomes including pain and other symptoms (Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale and Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale [MDAS]) associated with utilization of the SCCTP. RESULTS: A total of 375 patients were evaluable. One hundred fifteen of 400 patients (29%) used the SCCTP: 96 OPs (83%) used the SCCTP vs. only 19 IPs (17%) (P < 0.001). The most common reasons for calls were pain (24%), pain medication refills (24%), and counseling (12%). For 115 phone calls, 43% (145 of 340) of recommendations were regarding care at home and 56% were regarding opioids. Patients who used the SCCTP had worse pain (P = 0.006), fatigue (P = 0.045), depression (P = 0.041), and well-being (P = 0.015) and better MDAS scores (P = 0.014) compared with nonusers. OPs had a higher prevalence of symptom distress (P = 0.013), depression (P < 0.001), anxiety (P < 0.01), and insomnia scores (P = 0.001); MDAS scores were significantly higher in IPs (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In this study, we found that overall utilization of the SCCTP by ACPs referred to palliative care was relatively low at 28.7%. The use of the SCCTP was particularly poor among the IPs on discharge. Patients who used SCCTP had worse pain, fatigue, depression, and well-being scores and better delirium scores.