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.

Advance care planning and hospital outcomes in solid tumour oncology inpatients.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the association between advance care planning (ACP) and outcomes of in-hospital mortality, 30-day hospital readmission and 30-day emergency department (ED) visits among patients with cancer. METHODS: This observational cohort analysis included patients with solid tumour malignancies receiving oncology care and admitted at Yale New Haven Hospital between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2021. RESULTS: Among 19 422 patients, 1283 (6.6%) had a documented ACP note. Compared with patients without an ACP, patients with an ACP tended to be older, have longer LOS, be admitted to an oncology inpatient team, subsequently admitted to intensive care unit and have a lower Rothman Index. Multivariable logistic regression identified ACP as independently associated with decreased 30-day readmission (OR=0.70 (95% CI: 0.60 to 0.82)) and 30-day ED visit (OR=0.79 (95% CI: 0.68 to 0.91)), adjusting for in-hospital mortality and patient characteristics. CONCLUSION: ACP documentation is associated with decreased readmissions and ED visits, independent of hospice utilisation.

Lung Cancer Supportive Care and Symptom Management.

Lung cancer carries significant mortality and morbidity. In addition to treatment advances, supportive care may provide significant benefit for patients and their caregivers. A multidisciplinary approach is critical in addressing complications of lung cancer, including disease- and treatment-related complications, oncologic emergencies, symptom management and supportive care, and addressing the psychosocial needs of affected patients.

Association of palliative care and hospital outcomes among solid tumour oncology inpatients.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to explore the association between receiving an inpatient palliative care consultation and hospital outcomes, including in-hospital death, intensive care unit (ICU) use, discharge to hospice, 30-day readmissions and 30-day emergency department (ED) visits. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of Yale New Haven Hospital medical oncology admissions from January 2018 through December 2021, with and without inpatient palliative care consultations. Hospital outcome data were extracted from medical records and operationalised as binary. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate ORs for the association between number of inpatient palliative care consultations and hospital outcomes. RESULTS: Our sample included 19 422 patients. Age, Rothman Index, site of malignancy, length of stay, discharge to hospice, ICU admissions, hospital death and readmissions within 30 days differed significantly between patients who received versus did not receive a palliative care consultation. On multivariable analysis, receiving one additional palliative care consultation was significantly associated with higher odds of hospital death (adjusted OR=1.15, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.17) and discharge to hospice (adjusted OR = 1.23, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.26), and lower odds of ICU admission (adjusted OR=0.94, 95% CI 0.92 to 0.97). There was no significant association between palliative care consultations and readmission within 30 days or with ED visits within 30 days. CONCLUSION: Inpatients receiving palliative care had increased likelihood of hospital death. However, when controlling for significant differences in patient presentation, patients had nearly 25% greater odds of discharge to hospice and less odds to transition to ICU level of care.

Improving Breast Cancer Family Caregivers' Palliative Care Literacy: A Pilot Randomized Trial.

Self- and family management (SFM) refers to patients' and family caregivers' activities to co-manage illness. Two barriers to SFM are low palliative care literacy and lack of goals of care communication, which potentially result in SFM activities that are unsupportive of patients' goals. Managing Cancer Care: A Caregiver's Guide (MCC-CG) aims to improve palliative care literacy and communication within a SFM training program. In this pilot randomized trial, we enrolled breast cancer family caregivers and collected data at 0, 1, and 3 months on palliative care literacy, SFM engagement, communication, transitions management, uncertainty, caregiver burden, and caregiver competence/personal gain. Participants (n = 35) had a mean age of 54 (range: 18-81) and were 66% white and 34% racial/ethnic minorities. Intervention participants improved their palliative care literacy and SFM engagement, reduced uncertainty and caregiver burden, increased competence/personal gain, and had more goals of care conversations over time. MCC-CG has preliminary efficacy, warranting further study.

Integrating Palliative Care Into Self-management of Breast Cancer: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer patients may not be well-informed about palliative care, hindering its integration into cancer self-management. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to test Managing Cancer Care: A Personal Guide (MCC-PT), an intervention to improve palliative care literacy and cancer self-management. METHODS: This was a single-blind pilot randomized controlled trial to evaluate the feasibility/acceptability and intervention effects of MCC-PT on palliative care literacy, self-management behaviors/emotions, and moderation by demographic/clinical characteristics. We enrolled 71 stages I to IV breast cancer patients aged at least 21 years, with >6-month prognosis at an academic cancer center. Patients were randomized to MCC-PT (n = 32) versus symptom management education as attention-control (n = 39). At baseline, 1 month, and 3 months, participants completed the Knowledge of Care Options Test (primary outcome), Control Preferences Scale, Goals of Care Form, Medical Communication Competence Scale, Measurement of Transitions in Cancer Scale, Chronic Disease Self-efficacy Scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and the Mishel Uncertainty in Illness Scale. RESULTS: Mean participant age was 51.5 years (range, 28-74 years); 53.5% were racial/ethnic minority patients, and 40.8% had stage III/IV cancer. After adjusting for race/ethnicity, MCC-PT users improved their palliative care literacy with a large effect size (partial η2 = 0.13). Patients at late stage of disease showed increased self-management (partial η2 = 0.05) and reduced anxiety (partial η2 = 0.05) and depression (partial η2 = 0.07) with medium effect sizes. CONCLUSIONS: Managing Cancer Care: A Personal Guide is feasible and appears most effective in late-stage cancer. Research is needed to elucidate relationships among cancer stage, race/ethnicity, and self-management outcomes. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Integration of palliative care into cancer care can assist in creation of appropriate self-management plans and improve emotional outcomes.

Quality of Telehealth-Delivered Inpatient Palliative Care During the Early COVID-19 Pandemic.

CONTEXT: Consequent to increasing COVID-19 infection rates, the Palliative Care (PC) service at a large New England hospital shifted from in-person to telehealth-delivered PC (TPC). OBJECTIVES: We compared the quality of TPC to in-person PC during the early COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted an electronic health record review of PC consultations of patients hospitalized during three periods: pre-COVID January, 2020-February, 2020 (in-person); peak-COVID March, 2020-June, 2020 (majority TPC); and post-peak September, 2020-October, 2020 (majority in-person). We examined the relationship between these periods and PC delivery characteristics and quality measures using descriptive and bivariate statistics. RESULTS: Of 377 patients, 50 were pre-COVID (TPC=0%), 271 peak-COVID (TPC=79.3%), and 56 post-peak (TPC<2%) (representation of PC consult: pre- and post-peak=samples; peak-COVID=all consults). Mean age was 69.3 years (standard deviation=15.5), with 54.9% male, 68.7% White, and 22.8% Black. Age and sex did not differ by period. PC consultations were more likely for goals of care (pre=30.0% vs. peak=53.9% vs. post=57.1%; P = 0.005) or hospice (4.0% vs. 14.4% vs. 5.4%, P = 0.031) during peak-COVID compared to pre-COVID. Rates of assessment of physical (98.0% vs. 63.5% vs. 94.6%, P < 0.001) and psychological symptoms (90.0% vs. 33.1% vs. 67.9%, P < 0.001) were lower during peak relative to pre-COVID and post-peak periods. There were no differences in assessment of patients' social needs, family burden, or goals of care across periods. CONCLUSION: The PC service provided high-quality inpatient PC using TPC despite significant strain during the early COVID-19 pandemic. Developing and testing strategies to promote comprehensive symptom control using TPC remains a priority to adjust to potential unmet PC needs.

COVID-19 Traumatic Disaster Appraisal and Stress Symptoms Among Health Care Workers: Insights From the Yale Stress Self-assessment.

OBJECTIVE: To determine to what extent did health care workers experience the pandemic as a severe stress event. METHODS: This cross-sectional evaluation of 8299 health care workers, representing a 22% response rate, utilized machine learning to predict high levels of escalating stress based on demographics and known predictors for adverse psychological outcomes after trauma. RESULTS: A third of health care workers experienced the pandemic as a potentially traumatic stress event; a greater proportion of health care workers experienced high levels of escalating stress. Predictive factors included sense of control, ability to manage work-life demands, guilt or shame, age, and level of education. Gender was no longer predictive after controlling for other factors. Escalating stress was especially high among nonclinical academics and clinical private practitioners. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest adverse effects on total worker health, care quality, professionalism, retention, and acute and chronic mental health.

Consensus-Based Guidance on Opioid Management in Individuals With Advanced Cancer-Related Pain and Opioid Misuse or Use Disorder.

Importance: Opioid misuse and opioid use disorder (OUD) are important comorbidities in people with advanced cancer and cancer-related pain, but there is a lack of consensus on treatment. Objective: To develop consensus among palliative care and addiction specialists on the appropriateness of various opioid management strategies in individuals with advanced cancer-related pain and opioid misuse or OUD. Design, Setting, and Participants: For this qualitative study, using ExpertLens, an online platform and methodology for conducting modified Delphi panels, between August and October 2020, we conducted 2 modified Delphi panels to understand the perspectives of palliative and addiction clinicians on 3 common clinical scenarios varying by prognosis (weeks to months vs months to years). Of the 129 invited palliative or addiction medicine specialists, 120 participated in at least 1 round. A total of 84 participated in all 3 rounds. Main Outcomes and Measures: Consensus was investigated for 3 clinical scenarios: (1) a patient with a history of an untreated opioid use disorder, (2) a patient taking more opioid than prescribed, and (3) a patient using nonprescribed benzodiazepines. Results: Participants were mostly women (47 [62%]), White (94 (78 [65%]), and held MD/DO degrees (115 [96%]). For a patient with untreated OUD, regardless of prognosis, it was deemed appropriate to begin treatment with buprenorphine/naloxone and inappropriate to refer to a methadone clinic. Beginning split-dose methadone was deemed appropriate for patients with shorter prognoses and of uncertain appropriateness for those with longer prognoses. Beginning a full opioid agonist was deemed of uncertain appropriateness for those with a short prognosis and inappropriate for those with a longer prognosis. Regardless of prognosis, for a patient with no medical history of OUD taking more opioids than prescribed, it was deemed appropriate to increase monitoring, inappropriate to taper opioids, and of uncertain appropriateness to increase the patient's opioids or transition to buprenorphine/naloxone. For a patient with a urine drug test positive for non-prescribed benzodiazepines, regardless of prognosis, it was deemed appropriate to increase monitoring, inappropriate to taper opioids and prescribe buprenorphine/naloxone. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this qualitative study provide urgently needed consensus-based guidance for clinicians and highlight critical research and policy gaps.

Reflections on New Evidence on Crisis Standards of Care in the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Crisis standards of care have been widely developed by healthcare systems and states in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic, and in some rare cases have actually been used to allocate medical resources. All publicly available U.S. crisis standards of care with a mechanism for allocating scarce resources make use of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score in hopes of assigning scarce resources to those patients who are more likely to survive. We reflect on the growing body of evidence suggesting that the SOFA score has limited accuracy in predicting mortality among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and that the SOFA score systematically disfavors Black patients. Use of the SOFA score for allocating scarce resources may therefore result in Black patients with equal likelihood of survival being deprived of life-saving medical resources. There is also a risk of injustice for patients with non-COVID-19 diagnoses, for whom the SOFA score may be a more accurate prognostic score, but who might nevertheless be unfairly (de)prioritized when assessed alongside COVID-19 patients using the same scoring system. For these reasons we recommend that the SOFA score not be used for triage purposes during the COVID pandemic, and that a national effort be made to develop and empirically test crisis standards of care in advance of the next public health emergency.

Expert Panel Consensus on Management of Advanced Cancer-Related Pain in Individuals With Opioid Use Disorder.

Importance: Opioid use disorder (OUD) is an important comorbidity in individuals with advanced cancer, in whom pain is common. Full-agonist opioid medications are the cornerstone of cancer pain management, but the existing literature does not address how to manage cancer pain in patients with OUD. Objective: To conduct an expert panel to develop consensus on the appropriateness of management of cancer pain in individuals with co-occurring advanced cancer and OUD. Evidence Review: A 3-round modified Delphi process was completed from August to October 2020 with 2 cases: patient with advanced cancer, pain, and OUD treated with buprenorphine-naloxone or methadone. Participants rated management strategies in round 1, discussed results in round 2, and provided final responses in round 3. ExpertLens, an online approach to conducting modified Delphi panels, was used. Participants were experts in palliative care, addiction, or both, recruited by email from palliative care and addiction-focused professional groups, lists from prior studies, and snowball sampling. Data analysis was performed from November 2020 to July 2021. Findings: Of 120 experts (median age, 40-49 years), most were White (78 participants [94%]), female (74 participants [62%]), and held MD or DO degrees (115 participants [96%]); 84 (70%) participated in all rounds. For a patient with OUD taking buprenorphine-naloxone, it was deemed appropriate to continue buprenorphine-naloxone with thrice-daily dosing. Continuing buprenorphine-naloxone and adding a full-agonist opioid was deemed to be appropriate for patients with a prognosis of weeks to months and of uncertain appropriateness for patients with a prognosis of months to years. For a patient with OUD taking methadone dispensed at a methadone clinic, it was deemed appropriate to take over prescribing and dose twice or thrice daily. Continuing methadone daily while adding another full-agonist opioid was deemed appropriate for patients with a prognosis of weeks to months and of uncertain appropriateness for those with a prognosis of months to years. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this qualitative study provide urgently needed, consensus-based guidance for clinicians and highlight critical research and policy gaps needed to facilitate implementation.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Palliative Care, Version 2.2021.

Palliative care has evolved to be an integral part of comprehensive cancer care with the goal of early intervention to improve quality of life and patient outcomes. The NCCN Guidelines for Palliative Care provide recommendations to help the primary oncology team promote the best quality of life possible throughout the illness trajectory for each patient with cancer. The NCCN Palliative Care Panel meets annually to evaluate and update recommendations based on panel members' clinical expertise and emerging scientific data. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel's recent discussions and highlights updates on the importance of fostering adaptive coping strategies for patients and families, and on the role of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions to optimize symptom management.

An observational case series of targeted virtual geriatric medicine and palliative care consults for hospitalized older adults with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 presents unique challenges to the care of hospitalized older adults, including fractured lines of communication and uncertainty surrounding long term trajectories in cognition and function. Geriatric medicine and palliative care clinicians bring specialized training in facilitating communication in the face of uncertainty. Insurance expansion of virtual visits enabled inpatient virtual consultation, which can preserve personal protective equipment and minimize exposure to clinicians. We examined changes in goals of care and code status following an inpatient virtual consultation with geriatric medicine and palliative care clinicians. METHODS: This was an observational case series study performed at a large tertiary Academic Hospital. The study population included 78 patients aged 65 years and older, hospitalized with COVID-19 who had an inpatient consultation completed by geriatric medicine or palliative care clinicians between April 9, 2020 through May 9, 2020. The intervention was targeted, virtual geriatric medicine or palliative care consultation. All patients admitted to a medical floor with COVID-19 were screened four days a week and if a patient was over the age of 65, the medical team was offered a consultation by geriatric medicine (ages 80 and above) or palliative care (ages 65-79). Consultation included medical record review, telephone conversations with clinicians and nurses, telephone or video conversations with patients and/or surrogate decision-makers and collaborative case review on daily virtual huddles with an interprofessional team of geriatric medicine and palliative care clinicians. Descriptive statistics were applied to categorize outcomes after chart abstraction. RESULTS: Following consultation, 24 patients (31%) patients changed their code status to less invasive interventions. Of patients who were FULL CODE at the time of consultation (n=42), 2 (4.8%) transitioned to DNR only and 16 (38.1%) transitioned to DNR/DNI after consultation. While 8 patients (10.3%) utilized intensive care unit (ICU) level of care prior to consultation, 6 (7.6%) patients utilized ICU after consultation. After consultation, 11 (14.1%) patients were referred to hospice. CONCLUSIONS: Given uncertain trajectories in older adults hospitalized with COVID-19 and variability in patient preferences, virtual goals of care geriatric medicine and palliative care consultations should be considered as a key component of COVID-19 hospital protocols.

Consensus-based approach to managing opioids, including opioid misuse and opioid use disorder, in patients with serious illness: protocol for a modified Delphi process.

INTRODUCTION: Management of opioid misuse and opioid use disorder (OUD) among individuals with serious illness is an important yet understudied issue. Palliative care clinicians caring for individuals with serious illness, many of whom may live for months or years, describe a complex tension between weighing the benefits of opioids, which are considered a cornerstone of pain management in serious illness, and serious opioid-related harms like opioid misuse and OUD. And yet, little literature exists to inform the management of opioid misuse and OUDs among individuals with serious illness. Our objective is to provide evidence-based management guidance to clinicians caring for individuals with serious illness who develop opioid misuse or OUD. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We chose a modified Delphi approach, which is appropriate when empirical evidence is lacking and expert input must be used to shape clinical guidance. We sought to recruit 60 clinicians with expertise in palliative care, addiction or both to participate in this study. We created seven patient cases that capture important management challenges in individuals with serious illness prescribed opioid therapy. We used ExpertLens, an online platform for conducting modified Delphi panels. Participants completed three rounds of data collection. In round 1, they rated and commented on the appropriateness of management choices for cases. In round 2, participants reviewed and discussed their own and other participants' round 1 numerical responses and comments. In round 3 (currently ongoing), participants again reviewed rounds 1 and 2, and are allowed to change their final numerical responses. We used ExpertLens to automatically identify whether there is consensus, or disagreement, among responses in panels. Only round 3 responses will be used to assess final consensus and disagreement. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This project received ethical approval from the University of Pittsburgh's Institutional Review Board (study 19110301) and the RAND Institutional Research Board (study 2020-0142). Guidance from this work will be disseminated through national stakeholder networks to gain buy-in and endorsement. This study will also form the basis of an implementation toolkit for clinicians caring for individuals with serious illness who are at risk of opioid misuse or OUD.

Patterns of Opioid Prescribing among Medicare Advantage Beneficiaries with Pain and Cardiopulmonary Conditions.

Background: Pain is common among patients with cardiopulmonary conditions; however, there are increasing concerns, but limited research, regarding use of opioids for pain in patients with noncancer conditions. Objective: To compare patterns of opioid prescribing among older adults reporting pain with cardiopulmonary conditions and/or cancer. Design: Observational study using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare Health Outcomes Survey resource linked to Medicare Part D prescription claims. Setting/Subjects: We identified patients who self-reported moderate-to-severe pain interference with daily activities. Patients were stratified by (1) self-reported history of cardiopulmonary conditions; (2) were within five years of cancer diagnosis; (3) had both conditions; or (4) neither. Measurements: We characterized opioid prescribing within 30 days of survey and one-year follow-up using logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard time-to-event analyses. Results: Of 10,516 patients with moderate-to-severe pain (1758 cardiopulmonary conditions, 3383 cancer, 2861 both, 2514 neither), 46% were aged ≥75 years, 65% were non-Hispanic white, and 10% non-Hispanic black. At survey, 1627 (15.5%) received opioids. Adjusted proportions of opioid use were lower for patients with cardiopulmonary conditions only (14%) compared with cancer only (17%; p < 0.001) and both conditions (17%; p < 0.001) but higher than patients with neither condition (13.1%; p < 0.001). There was no difference in time to initiation of opioids at follow-up among patients with cardiopulmonary conditions only, relative to cancer only (adjusted hazard ratio 1.03; 95% confidence interval 0.88-1.21). Conclusions: Opioid use is lower among patients with pain and cardiopulmonary conditions relative to patients with cancer. Findings emphasize the importance of pain assessment and management for patients with cardiopulmonary conditions.

Mobilizing an institutional supportive response for healthcare workers and other staff in the context of COVID-19: The Yale experience.

The burden of the COVID-19 pandemic upon healthcare workers necessitates a systematic effort to support their resilience. This article describes the Yale University and Yale New Haven Health System effort to unite several independent initiatives into a coherent integrated model for institutional support for healthcare workers. Here, we highlight both opportunities and challenges faced in attempting to support healthcare workers during this pandemic.

Developing a Triage Protocol for the COVID-19 Pandemic: Allocating Scarce Medical Resources in a Public Health Emergency.

The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) has caused shortages of life-sustaining medical resources, and future waves of the virus may cause further scarcity. The Yale New Haven Health System developed a triage protocol to allocate scarce medical resources during the COVID-19 pandemic, with the primary goal of saving the most lives possible, and a secondary goal of making triage assessments and decisions consistent, transparent, and fair. We outline the process of developing the triage protocol, summarize the protocol itself, and discuss the major ethical challenges encountered, along with our answers to these challenges. These challenges include (1) the role of age and chronic comorbidities; (2) evaluating children and pregnant patients; (3) racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities in health; (4) prioritization of healthcare workers; and (5) balancing clinical judgment versus protocolized assessments. We conclude with a review of the limitations of our protocol and the lessons learned. We hope that a robust public discussion of such protocols and the ethical challenges that they raise will result in the fairest possible processes, less need for triage, and more lives saved during future waves of the COVID-19 pandemic and similar public health emergencies.

Severe functional limitation due to pain & emotional distress and subsequent receipt of prescription medications among older adults with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Certain cancer types and subsequent treatment can cause or worsen pain and emotional distress, leading to functional limitation, particularly among a growing population of older adults with cancer. METHODS: We constructed a national sample of older adult Medicare beneficiaries with cancer using the 2007-2012 Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare Health Outcomes Survey (MHOS) database linked to Medicare Part D enrollment and prescription claims data. MHOS survey responses described functional limitations due to pain and emotional distress. Using multivariable logistic regression, we estimated the association between participant characteristics and patient-reported functional limitation due to pain and emotional distress and subsequent prescription medication use. RESULTS: Among 9105 older adults with cancer, aged 66-102 years (y), 68.6% reported moderate to severe functional limitation due to pain, and 48.3% reported moderate to severe functional limitation due to emotional distress. Nearly 10% reported severe functional limitation due to co-occurring symptoms of pain and emotional distress. Significant predictors of severe functional limitation due to co-occurring symptoms included age ≥ 80y (ref: 66-69y, adjusted relative risk (aRR): 1.74; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.39-2.18, p < .001), stage IV disease at diagnosis (ref: stage I, aRR: 2.08; CI 1.52-2.86, p < .001), and lung cancer (ref: breast cancer, aRR: 1.84; CI 1.30-2.61, p < .001). Among 892 participants reporting co-occurring symptoms, 32.5% received neither pain nor emotional distress prescription medication. CONCLUSIONS: Functional limitation due to pain and emotional distress persist among older adults with cancer, particularly octogenarians. Efforts to identify and target unmet supportive care needs to maintain functional independence are needed.

Patterns of pain medication use associated with reported pain interference in older adults with and without cancer.

CONTEXT: Concerns about the adequacy of pain management among older adults are increasing, particularly with restrictions on opioid prescribing. OBJECTIVES: To examine associations between prescription pain medication receipt and patient-reported pain interference in older adults with and without cancer. METHODS: Using the 2007-2012 Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare Health Outcomes Survey (MHOS) database linked to Medicare Part D prescription claims, we selected MHOS respondents (N = 15,624) aged ≥ 66 years, ≤ 5 years of a cancer diagnosis (N = 9105), or without cancer (N = 6519). We measured receipt of opioids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and antiepileptics, and selected antidepressants within 30 days prior to survey. Patient-reported activity limitation due to pain (pain interference) within the past 30 days was summarized as severe, moderate, or mild/none. Logistic regression using predictive margins estimated associations between pain interference, cancer history, and pain medication receipt, adjusting for socio-demographics, chronic conditions, and Part D low-income subsidy. RESULTS: Severe or moderate pain interference was reported by 21.3% and 46.1%, respectively. Pain medication was received by 21.5%, with 11.6% receiving opioids. Among adults reporting severe pain interference, opioid prescriptions were filled by 27.0% versus 23.8% (p = 0.040) with and without cancer, respectively. Over half (56%) of adults reporting severe pain in both groups failed to receive any prescription pain medication. CONCLUSIONS: Older adults with cancer were more likely to receive prescription pain medications compared with adults without cancer; however, many older adults reporting severe pain interference did not receive medications. Improved assessment and management of pain among older adults with and without cancer is urgently needed.