Improving Access to Care for Patients Taking Opioids for Chronic Pain: Recommendations from a Modified Delphi Panel in Michigan.

Purpose: About 5-8 million US patients take long-term opioid therapy for chronic pain. In the context of policies and guidelines instituted to reduce inappropriate opioid prescribing, abrupt discontinuations in opioid prescriptions have increased and many primary care clinics will not prescribe opioids for new patients, reducing access to care. This may result in uncontrolled pain and other negative outcomes, such as transition to illicit opioids. The objective of this study was to generate policy, intervention, and research recommendations to improve access to care for these patients. Participants and Methods: We conducted a RAND/UCLA Modified Delphi, consisting of workshops, background videos and reading materials, and moderated web-based panel discussions held September 2020-January 2021. The panel consisted of 24 individuals from across Michigan, identified via expert nomination and snowball recruitment, including clinical providers, health science researchers, state-level policymakers and regulators, care coordination experts, patient advocates, payor representatives, and community and public health experts. The panel proposed intervention, policy, and research recommendations, scored the feasibility, impact, and importance of each on a 9-point scale, and ranked all recommendations by implementation priority. Results: The panel produced 11 final recommendations across three themes: reimbursement reform, provider education, and reducing racial inequities in care. The 3 reimbursement-focused recommendations were highest ranked (theme average = 4.2/11), including the two top-ranked recommendations: increasing reimbursement for time needed to treat complex chronic pain (ranked #1/11) and bundling payment for multimodal pain care (#2/11). Four provider education recommendations ranked slightly lower (theme average = 6.2/11) and included clarifying the spectrum of opioid dependence and training providers on multimodal treatments. Four recommendations addressed racial inequities (theme average = 7.2/11), such as standardizing pain management protocols to reduce treatment disparities. Conclusion: Panelists indicated reimbursement should incentivize traditionally lower-paying evidence-based pain care, but multiple strategies may be needed to meaningfully expand access.

Meaning-centered pain coping skills training for patients with metastatic cancer: Results of a randomized controlled pilot trial.

OBJECTIVE: For patients with advanced cancer, pain is a common and debilitating symptom that can negatively impact physical, emotional, and spiritual well-being. This trial examined the feasibility and initial effects of Meaning-Centered Pain Coping Skills Training (MCPC), a cognitive-behavioral pain management intervention with an emphasis on enhancing meaning (i.e., a personal sense of purpose, worth, and significance) and peace. METHODS: We enrolled 60 adults with stage IV solid tumor cancers and moderate-severe pain between February 2021 and February 2022. Participants were randomized 1:1 to MCPC + usual care or usual care alone. Meaning-Centered Pain Coping Skills Training consisted of four weekly 60-min individual sessions via videoconference or telephone, delivered by a trained therapist using a manualized protocol. Participants completed validated measures of pain severity, pain interference, pain self-efficacy, spiritual well-being (i.e., meaning, peace, and faith), and psychological distress at baseline and 5-week and 10-week follow-ups. RESULTS: All feasibility metrics exceeded prespecified benchmarks. Fifty-eight percent of screened patients were eligible, and 69% of eligible patients consented. Of those assigned to MCPC, 93% completed all sessions and 100% of those who completed follow-ups reported using coping skills weekly. Retention was strong at 5-week (85%) and 10-week (78%) follow-ups. Meaning-Centered Pain Coping Skills Training participants reported better scores than control participants across outcome measures, including moderate-to-large sized differences at 10-week follow-up in pain severity (Cohen's d = -0.75 [95% confidence interval: -1.36, -0.14]), pain interference (d = -0.82 [-1.45, -0.20]), and pain self-efficacy (d = 0.74 [0.13, 1.35]). CONCLUSIONS: MCPC is a highly feasible, engaging, and promising approach for improving pain management in advanced cancer. Future efficacy testing is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04431830, registered 16 June 2020.

Variation in Clinical Characteristics and Longitudinal Outcomes in Individuals with Opioid Use Disorder Diagnosis Codes.

BACKGROUND: Patterns of opioid use vary, including prescribed use without aberrancy, limited aberrant use, and potential opioid use disorder (OUD). In clinical practice, similar opioid-related International Classification of Disease (ICD) codes are applied across this spectrum, limiting understanding of how groups vary by sociodemographic factors, comorbidities, and long-term risks. OBJECTIVE: (1) Examine how Veterans assigned opioid abuse/dependence ICD codes vary at diagnosis and with respect to long-term risks. (2) Determine whether those with limited aberrant use share more similarities to likely OUD vs those using opioids as prescribed. DESIGN: Longitudinal observational cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: National sample of Veterans categorized as having (1) likely OUD, (2) limited aberrant opioid use, or (3) prescribed, non-aberrant use based upon enhanced medical chart review. MAIN MEASURES: Comparison of sociodemographic and clinical factors at diagnosis and rates of age-adjusted mortality, non-fatal opioid overdose, and hospitalization after diagnosis. An exploratory machine learning analysis investigated how closely those with limited aberrant use resembled those with likely OUD. KEY RESULTS: Veterans (n = 483) were categorized as likely OUD (62.1%), limited aberrant use (17.8%), and prescribed, non-aberrant use (20.1%). Age, proportion experiencing homelessness, chronic pain, anxiety disorders, and non-opioid substance use disorders differed by group. All-cause mortality was high (44.2 per 1000 person-years (95% CI 33.9, 56.7)). Hospitalization rates per 1000 person-years were highest in the likely OUD group (831.5 (95% CI 771.0, 895.5)), compared to limited aberrant use (739.8 (95% CI 637.1, 854.4)) and prescribed, non-aberrant use (411.9 (95% CI 342.6, 490.4). The exploratory analysis reclassified 29.1% of those with limited aberrant use as having likely OUD with high confidence. CONCLUSIONS: Veterans assigned opioid abuse/dependence ICD codes are heterogeneous and face variable long-term risks. Limited aberrant use confers increased risk compared to no aberrant use, and some may already have OUD. Findings warrant future investigation of this understudied population.

Factors associated with clinician treatment recommendations for patients with a new diagnosis of opioid use disorder.

BACKGROUND: This study examined factors associated with treatment recommendations for patients with a new diagnosis of opioid use disorder (OUD), comparing recommendations for patients with clear signs of OUD versus those with lower likelihood of OUD. METHODS: The study conducted a retrospective medical chart review in a randomly selected national sample of 520 Veteran Health Administration patients with a new opioid-related electronic health record (EHR) diagnosis from 2012 to 2017. The study categorized patients as having "high likelihood" or "lower likelihood of OUD" based on the presence or absence of clinician documentation in medical records of specific qualifying criteria (e.g., clinician documentation of patient meeting diagnostic criteria for OUD, etc). Analyses examined the association between baseline demographic and clinical characteristics with recommendations for medication and other treatments for OUD. RESULTS: Among patients with a new diagnosis of OUD, 28.7 % (n = 149) were recommended medication treatment, 52.5 % (n = 273) were recommended specialty substance use disorder (SUD) treatment, and 41.9 % (n = 218) were recommended treatment in non-SUD mental health settings. In adjusted models, high likelihood of OUD (AOR 8.31, 95 % CI 4.81-15.03) was strongly associated with the clinician recommending medications for OUD, while age 56-75 (compared to <35, AOR 0.36, 95 % CI 0.18-0.69), stimulant use disorder (AOR 0.28, 95 % CI 0.15-0.53), and rural residence (AOR 0.51, 95 % CI 0.30-0.85) were associated with lower likelihood of being recommended medication treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Differentiating among patients with EHR diagnoses of OUD to identify the subset with higher likelihood of underlying OUD is important to accurately understand OUD treatment rates and disparities. However, even among patients with a clear diagnosis of OUD, medication treatment is still recommended less often than other treatments, suggesting interventions are needed to encourage clinicians to prioritize medication treatment as a first-line treatment, especially for older, rural patients and those with polysubstance use.

Bad company: Loneliness longitudinally predicts the symptom cluster of pain, fatigue, and depression in older adults.

BACKGROUND: Pain, fatigue, and depression frequently co-occur as a symptom cluster. While commonly occurring in those with cancer and autoimmune disease, the cluster is also found in the absence of systemic illness or inflammation. Loneliness is a common psychosocial stressor associated with the cluster cross-sectionally. We investigated whether loneliness predicted the development of pain, fatigue, depression, and the symptom cluster over time. METHODS: Data from the Health and Retirement Study were used. We included self-respondents ≥50 year-old who had at least two measurements of loneliness and the symptom cluster from 2006-2016 (n = 5974). Time-varying loneliness was used to predict pain, fatigue, depression, and the symptom cluster in the subsequent wave(s) using generalized estimating equations (GEE) and adjusting for sociodemographic covariates, living arrangement, and the presence of the symptom(s) at baseline. RESULTS: Loneliness increased the odds of subsequently reporting pain (aOR 1.22, 95% CI 1.08, 1.37), fatigue (aOR 1.47, 95% CI 1.32, 1.65), depression (aOR 2.33, 95% CI 2.02, 2.68), as well as the symptom cluster (aOR 2.15, 95% CI 1.74, 2.67). The median time between the baseline and final follow-up measurement was 7.6 years (IQR 4.1, 8.2). CONCLUSIONS: Loneliness strongly predicts the development of pain, fatigue, and depression as well as the cluster of all three symptoms several years later in a large, nonclinical sample of older American adults. Future studies should examine the multiple pathways through which loneliness may produce this cluster, as well as examine whether other psychosocial stressors also increase risk. It is possible that interventions which address loneliness in older adults may prevent or mitigate the cluster of pain, fatigue, and depression.

Evaluation of Buprenorphine Rotation in Patients Receiving Long-term Opioids for Chronic Pain: A Systematic Review.

Importance: Individuals with chronic pain who use long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) are at risk of opioid use disorder and other harmful outcomes. Rotation to buprenorphine may be considered, but the outcomes of such rotation in this population have not been systematically reviewed. Objective: To synthesize the evidence on rotation to buprenorphine from full µ-opioid receptor agonists among individuals with chronic pain who were receiving LTOT, including the outcomes of precipitated opioid withdrawal, pain intensity, pain interference, treatment success, adverse events or adverse effects, mental health condition, and health care use. Evidence Review: PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycInfo were searched from inception through November 3, 2020, for peer-reviewed original English-language research that reported the prespecified outcomes of rotation from prescribed long-term opioids to buprenorphine among individuals with chronic pain. Two independent reviewers extracted data as well as assessed risk of bias and study quality according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines. Quality of evidence was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Findings: A total of 22 studies were analyzed, of which 5 (22.7%) were randomized clinical trials, 7 (31.8%) were case-control or cohort studies, and 10 (45.5%) were uncontrolled pre-post studies, which involved 1616 unique participants (675 female [41.8%] and 941 male [58.2%] individuals). Six of the 22 studies (27.3%) were primary or secondary analyses of a large randomized clinical trial. Participants had diverse pain and opioid use histories. Rationale for buprenorphine rotation included inadequate analgesia, intolerable adverse effects, risky opioid regimens (eg, high dose and/or sedative coprescriptions), and aberrant opioid use. Most protocols were adapted from protocols for initiating treatment in patients with opioid use disorder and used buccal or sublingual buprenorphine. Very low-quality evidence suggested that buprenorphine rotation was associated with maintained or improved analgesia, with a low risk of precipitating opioid withdrawal. Steady-dose buprenorphine was better tolerated than tapered-dose buprenorphine. Adverse effects were manageable, and severe adverse events were rare. Only 2 studies evaluated mental health outcomes, but none evaluated health care use. Limitations included a high risk of bias in most studies. Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review, buprenorphine was associated with reduced chronic pain intensity without precipitating opioid withdrawal in individuals with chronic pain who were receiving LTOT. Future studies are necessary to ascertain the ideal starting dose, formulation, and administration frequency of buprenorphine as well as the best approach to buprenorphine rotation.

Unwelcome Companions: Loneliness Associates with the Cluster of Pain, Fatigue, and Depression in Older Adults.

Objective: Pain, fatigue, and depression commonly co-occur as a symptom cluster in pathological inflammatory states. Psychosocial stressors such as loneliness may lead to similar states through shared mechanisms. We investigated the association of loneliness with pain, fatigue, and depression in older adults. Methods: Using Health and Retirement Study data (N = 11,766), we measured cross-sectional prevalence of frequent, moderate to severe pain; severe fatigue; depressive symptoms; and co-occurrence of symptoms surpassing threshold levels (i.e., symptom cluster). Logistic regression models evaluated associations with loneliness. Results: Pain, fatigue, and depression were reported in 19.2%, 20.0%, and 15.3% of the total sample, respectively. The symptom cluster was seen in 4.9% overall; prevalence in lonely individuals was significantly increased (11.6% vs. 2.3%, p < .0001). After adjusting for demographic variables, loneliness associated with the symptom cluster (adjusted OR = 3.39, 95% CI = 2.91, 3.95) and each symptom (pain adjusted OR = 1.61, 95% CI = 1.48, 1.76; fatigue adjusted OR = 2.02, 95% CI = 1.85, 2.20; depression adjusted OR = 4.34, 95% CI = 3.93, 4.79). Discussion: Loneliness strongly associates with the symptom cluster of pain, fatigue, and depression. Further research should examine causal relationships and investigate whether interventions targeting loneliness mitigate pain, fatigue, and depression.

Caregiver support and place of death among older adults.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: As home becomes the most common place of death in the United States, information about caregiver support and place of death is critical to improve patient and caregiver experiences at end of life. We seek to examine (1) the association between family care availability and place of death; and (2) caregiving intensity associated with place of death. DESIGN: 2017 National Health and Aging Trends Study and National Study of Caregiving; nationally representative cross-sectional study of deceased older adults and last-month-of-life (LML) caregivers. SETTING: United States; all places of deaths. PARTICIPANTS: Three-hundred and seventy-five decedents and 267 LML caregivers. MEASUREMENTS: Place of death (home, hospital, and nursing or hospice facility), family care availability (spouse/partner, household size, number of daughters and sons), caregiving intensity (hours of help provided at LML and a binary indicator for high care-related emotional difficulty). RESULTS: 38.9% of older adults died at home, followed by hospital (33.1%), and nursing or hospice facility (28.0%). In an adjusted multinomial logistic regression, decedents with larger household size (odds ratio [OR]: 0.441; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.269-0.724) and more daughters (OR: 0.743 [95% CI: 0.575-0.958]) had lower odds of dying in nursing or hospice facility relative to dying at home. For older adults who died at home, caregivers provided 209.8 h of help at LML. In contrast, when death occurred in nursing or hospice facility, caregivers provided 91.6 fewer hours of help, adjusted for decedent and caregiver characteristics. Dying in hospital was associated with higher odds of caregiver emotional difficulty relative to home deaths (OR: 4.093 [95% CI: 1.623-10.323]). CONCLUSIONS: Household size and number of daughters are important determinants of place of death. Despite dying at home being associated with more hours of direct caregiving; caregiver emotional strain was experienced as higher for hospital deaths. Better support services for end-of-life caregivers might improve patient and caregiver experiences for home and hospital deaths.

Palliative Care for Older Adults with Multimorbidity in the Time of COVID 19.

Older adults with multimorbidity face difficulty accessing healthcare in the COVID era. Palliative care referral may be appropriate to provide additional support for symptoms, advance care planning, or caregiver distress. Since COVID, many palliative care providers have become more accessible through telehealth; however, older adults may have challenges with technology and require caregiver involvement to use. In the inpatient setting, palliative consult teams have assumed a greater role in daily communication with families who cannot visit the patient and in providing emotional support to front-line colleagues. Busy primary clinicians have embraced these efforts, but challenges remain to sustaining these changes.

A mixed methods evaluation of the Brain Injury Family Intervention.

OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare caregivers' and patients' helpfulness and goal attainment ratings of the Brain Injury Family Intervention (BIFI), and qualitatively evaluate their perceptions of most important things learned. METHODS: 76 caregivers and 76 patients with acquired brain injury participated in the BIFI, a structured family intervention program which includes educational, skill building, and psychological support components. Outcome measures were obtained following each of the five intervention sessions and following completion of the entire program. RESULTS: Session helpfulness ratings for caregivers and patients were uniformly high as were ratings of the extent to which session goals were met. Between group comparisons did not indicate differences for individual session helpfulness or goal attainment ratings. Qualitative analysis of most important things learned provided corroboratory evidence that BIFI topics were relevant and consistent with program goals. CONCLUSIONS: The present investigation provides evidence that the BIFI is perceived as helpful and that treatment methods facilitate achievement of goals. The investigation also suggests that investigators may benefit from using mixed methods to evaluate outcomes, complementing traditional quantitative methods with qualitative approaches.

Caregivers' concerns about judgment and safety of patients with brain injury: a preliminary investigation.

OBJECTIVE: To identify caregivers' most common concerns about the judgment and safety of patients with brain injury in home and community environments. To quantify caregivers' stress levels and their level of comfort leaving patients at home unsupervised and examine the interrelationships between caregivers' safety and judgment ratings, stress levels, and levels of comfort leaving patients unattended. DESIGN: Retrospective, cross-sectional design. SETTING: Outpatient brain injury neuropsychology clinic at a university medical center. PARTICIPANTS: A convenience sample of 121 caregivers of traumatic brain injury survivors at least 1 month postinjury and 18 years of age or older. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Scores in 9 domains from the Judgment and Safety Screening Inventory; ratings of stress levels and levels of comfort leaving patients at home unattended derived from the General Health and History Questionnaire. RESULTS: Caregivers' most common judgment and safety-related concerns were in the Travel and Financial domains, with many reflecting patients' memory deficits. Heightened caregiver stress levels were prevalent. Higher levels of concern about judgment and safety were associated with higher stress levels and concerns about leaving patients unattended. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with research on patients with other types of neurological disorders, concerns about driving and financial management among caregivers are prevalent. Additional research is needed to identify the most cost-effective methods of evaluating patients and enabling them to function at their highest level in the community.