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

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

A National Survey on Patient Provider Agreements When Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain.

BACKGROUND: Many national guidelines recommend the use of patient provider agreements (PPAs) when prescribing opioids for chronic pain. There are no standards for PPA content, readability, or administration processes. OBJECTIVE: Conduct a national survey of providers who use PPAs to describe the process of administering them, assess views on their utility, and obtain PPAs to evaluate thematic content and readability. DESIGN: Cross-sectional electronic survey and request for PPAs. PARTICIPANTS: Registrants for the Safer/Competent Opioid Prescribing Education (SCOPE of Pain) Program between March 2013 and June 2017. MAIN MEASURES: Respondents' reports on how PPAs are administered and views on their usefulness. A sample of PPAs assessed for themes and readability. KEY RESULTS: Using a convenience sample of 62,530 SCOPE of Pain registrants, we obtained a cohort of 430 individuals from 43 states who use PPAs. The majority of respondents worked in primary care (64%) and pain (18%) specialties. Reviewing PPAs with patients was primarily done by prescribers (80%), and the average perceived time to administer PPAs was 13 min. Although 66% of respondents thought PPAs were "often" or "always" worth the effort, only 28% considered them "often" or "always" effective in reducing opioid misuse. The PPA reading burden surpassed recommended patient education standards, with only 2.5% at or below fifth-grade reading level. PPAs focused more on rules and consequences of patients' non-compliance than on a shared treatment plan. CONCLUSIONS: Most respondents perceive patient provider agreements (PPAs) as time-consuming and minimally effective in reducing opioid misuse yet still view them as valuable. PPAs are written far above recommended reading levels and serve primarily to convey consequences of non-compliance. Because PPAs are recommended by national safer opioid prescribing guidelines as a risk mitigation strategy, it would be beneficial to develop a standard PPA and study its effectiveness.

Faculty education in addiction training (FEAT): Evaluating an online training program for multidisciplinary health professions educators.

Background: Many health professionals lack adequate training needed to effectively address alcohol and other drug (AOD)-related problems. Building upon our previously successful in-person faculty training programs, we designed and pilot tested the brief online Faculty Education in Addiction Training (FEAT) Program for social work and internal medicine residency faculty. The present study examines baseline and post-FEAT Program AOD knowledge and teaching confidence and preparedness among faculty participants. Methods: The FEAT Program curriculum included didactic videos, online engagement with content experts, recommended readings, and a live virtual classroom experience. Participants completed self-assessments of knowledge and teaching confidence and preparedness pre- and post-FEAT program. Results: In this pilot test, thirty faculty completed the FEAT program: 15 social work and 15 internal medical residency program faculty. Both groups showed significant improvement (p < 0.001) in overall AOD-related knowledge with medium-to-large effects (Cohen's d = 1.83 [social work], 0.72 [medicine]). Both groups showed significant increases in teaching confidence (p < 0.001) for all items with large effects (Cohen's d values range from 1.08 to 1.92) and significant increases and large effects for all teaching preparedness items for social work (at least p < 0.01 | Cohen's d range = 1.03-1.56) and internal medical residency faculty (p < 0.001 | Cohen's d range = 1.08-1.69). Conclusions: Multidisciplinary health professions educators' AOD knowledge and teaching confidence and preparedness can be improved by participation in a brief online program designed to circumvent the logistical and fiscal challenges presented by in-person programs.

National Trends in Prescription Opioid Risk Mitigation Practices: Implications for Prescriber Education.

OBJECTIVES: To assess national trends in selected prescription opioid risk mitigation practices and associations with prescriber type, state-specific opioid overdose severity, and required pain education. METHODS: Analysis of the national SCOPE of Pain registrants' baseline self-report of five safer opioid prescribing practices over three years (March 2013-Februrary 2016). RESULTS: Of 6,889 registrants for SCOPE of Pain, 70-94% reported performing each of five opioid risk mitigation practices for "most or all" patients, with 49% doing so for all five practices. Only 28% performed all five practices for "all" patients prescribed opioids. There were few differences among three yearly cohorts. Advanced practice nurses reported performing practices for "all" patients more often than physicians or physician assistants. Clinicians from states with high opioid overdose rates reported significantly higher implementation of most practices, compared with clinicians from states with low rates. CONCLUSIONS: Prescribers report low levels of employing five opioid risk mitigation practices for all patients prescribed opioids before attending a safer opioid prescribing training. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Safer opioid prescribing education should transition from knowledge acquisition toward universal implementation of opioid risk mitigation practices.

Utilizing a Faculty Development Program to Promote Safer Opioid Prescribing for Chronic Pain in Internal Medicine Resident Practices.

OBJECTIVE: To implement a skills-based faculty development program (FDP) to improve Internal Medicine faculty's clinical skills and resident teaching about safe opioid prescribing. DESIGN: An FDP for Internal Medicine attendings that included a one-hour didactic presentation followed immediately by an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) that focused on assessing and managing opioid misuse risk, opioid treatment outcomes (benefits and harms), and aberrant opioid use behaviors. The evaluation compared pre- and three-months-post-FDP changes in faculty's safe opioid prescribing knowledge, attitudes, confidence (clinical and teaching), and self-reported resident teaching. RESULTS: The 25 Internal Medicine faculty participants had a mean of 13 years in clinical practice, including 10 years precepting residents. During the three months post-FDP, faculty treated a mean of 22 patients with chronic pain on long-term opioids and precepted a mean of seven residents caring for patients on long-term opioids. At three months post-FDP, there were significant improvements in correct responses to knowledge questions (68% to 79% P = 0.008), "high-level" confidence in safer opioid prescribing clinical practice (43.5% to 82.6% P = 0.007) and resident teaching (45.8% to 83.3%, P = 0.007), and improvements in alignment of desired attitudes toward safer opioid prescribing. There were nonsignificant increases in self-reported safe opioid prescribing resident teaching. CONCLUSIONS: A skills-based faculty development program that includes a lecture followed by an OSCE can improve Internal Medicine faculty safe opioid prescribing knowledge, attitudes, and clinical and teaching confidence. Improving resident teaching may require additional training in safe opioid prescribing teaching skills.

Challenges with Implementing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Opioid Guideline: A Consensus Panel Report.

BACKGROUND: A national crisis of opioid-related morbidity, mortality, and misuse has led to initiatives to address the appropriate role of opioids to treat pain. Deployment of a guideline from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to reduce the risks of opioid therapy has raised substantial clinical and public policy challenges. The agency anticipated implementation challenges and committed to reevaluating the guideline for intended and unintended effects on clinician and patient outcomes. OBSERVATIONS: A multidisciplinary expert panel met to review the influence of the core recommendations of the guideline on pain management practices, principally regarding the estimated 5 to 8 million Americans with chronic pain currently on opioids. The panel identified implementation challenges, including application of dosage ceilings and prescription duration guidance, failure to appreciate the importance of patient involvement in decisions to taper or discontinue opioids, barriers to diagnosis and treatment of opioid use disorder, and impeded access to recommended comprehensive, multimodal pain care. Furthermore, policy-making and regulatory bodies may misapply guideline recommendations without flexibility and, sometimes, without full awareness of what the guideline contains. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The panel largely supported the guideline, endorsing its focal points of safety and comprehensive assessment and monitoring. To mitigate clinical and policy challenges identified with implementing the guideline, the panel discussed areas where viewpoints diverged and arrived at consensus proposals. The target audience includes the leaders and institutions that create policy and influence guideline implementation to include regulatory agencies, legislators, public and private payers, and health care systems.

Opioid discontinuation as an institutional mandate: Questions and answers on why we wrote to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

On March 6, 2019, a self-designated committee sent a public letter to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) urging the agency to address the widespread misapplication of its 2016 guideline on prescribing opioids. Three hundred and eighteen health care professionals, and three former Directors of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (Drug Czars) signed the letter, as did the parent organization for Substance Abuse Journal, the Association for Multidisciplinary Education and Research on Substance use and Addiction. The letter reflected concern about a wide range of initiatives and policies by payers, quality metric agencies, health care organizations, and other regulators enforced to strongly incentivize or mandate forced opioid dose reductions on long-term opioid recipients who were otherwise stable. In April of 2019, both the United States Food and Drug Administration and the CDC's Director issued statements that could help to reduce ongoing harms resulting from such forced reductions, provided they are taken seriously. This commentary explains the rationale for the original letter, and the optimum course of action now that the CDC has responded.

Prescription Medication Misuse.

In the United States, there is a prescription medication misuse crisis including increases in unintentional drug overdose deaths, medications obtained on the illicit market (i.e., diversion), and in the number of individuals seeking treatment for addiction to prescription medications. Neurologists manage patients suffering from conditions (e.g., pain, seizures, spasticity) where the prescriptions of medications with misuse potential are indicated. It is therefore imperative that neurologists understand which medications are liable to misuse and institute strategies to minimize the harm associated with these medications. The authors review the most common medications prescribed by neurologist with misuse potential, and briefly discuss the behaviors that are suggestive of medication misuse and tools for monitoring patients to minimize medication-related harm from misuse.

Rational Urine Drug Monitoring in Patients Receiving Opioids for Chronic Pain: Consensus Recommendations.

Objective: To develop consensus recommendations on urine drug monitoring (UDM) in patients with chronic pain who are prescribed opioids. Methods: An interdisciplinary group of clinicians with expertise in pain, substance use disorders, and primary care conducted virtual meetings to review relevant literature and existing guidelines and share their clinical experience in UDM before reaching consensus recommendations. Results: Definitive (e.g., chromatography-based) testing is recommended as most clinically appropriate for UDM because of its accuracy; however, institutional or payer policies may require initial use of presumptive testing (i.e., immunoassay). The rational choice of substances to analyze for UDM involves considerations that are specific to each patient and related to illicit drug availability. Appropriate opioid risk stratification is based on patient history (especially psychiatric conditions or history of opioid or substance use disorder), prescription drug monitoring program data, results from validated risk assessment tools, and previous UDM. Urine drug monitoring is suggested to be performed at baseline for most patients prescribed opioids for chronic pain and at least annually for those at low risk, two or more times per year for those at moderate risk, and three or more times per year for those at high risk. Additional UDM should be performed as needed on the basis of clinical judgment. Conclusions: Although evidence on the efficacy of UDM in preventing opioid use disorder, overdose, and diversion is limited, UDM is recommended by the panel as part of ongoing comprehensive risk monitoring in patients prescribed opioids for chronic pain.

How Would You Manage Opioid Use in These Three Patients?: Grand Rounds Discussion From Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

The increase in overdose deaths from prescription opioids and heroin in the United States over the past 20 years is believed to have resulted from increases in prescription of opioids for management of acute and chronic pain. Managing chronic pain is challenging for primary care clinicians for many reasons, including the lack of evidence to guide practice. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published a comprehensive guideline in 2016 to help clinicians with opioid prescribing for chronic pain. In this Grand Rounds, the guideline is reviewed and an expert discusses its application to 3 patients prescribed opioids to treat chronic pain.

Promoting addiction medicine teaching through functional mentoring by co-training generalist chief residents with faculty mentors.

BACKGROUND: Generalist physicians should play a vital role in identifying and managing individuals with substance use but are inadequately trained to do so. METHODS: This 5-year (2008-2012) controlled educational study assessed whether internal medicine and family medicine chief residents' (CRs) addiction medicine teaching increased by co-training with faculty mentors at a Chief Resident Immersion Training (CRIT) program in addiction medicine. All CRIT CR attendees identified a residency program faculty mentor to support addiction medicine teaching after CRIT through functional mentoring with a focus on developing and implementing an Addiction Medicine Teaching Project ("Teaching Project"). Approximately half of the CRs attended CRIT with their mentor (co-trained) and half without their mentor (solo-trained). Addiction medicine teaching outcomes were compared between groups using 6- and 11-month questionnaires and 4 bimonthly teaching logs. Of co-trained CRs, mentor characteristics that positively influenced addiction medicine teaching outcomes were identified. RESULTS: One hundred CRs from 74 residency programs attended CRIT from 2008 to 2012; 47 co-trained with their mentors and 53 solo-trained without their mentors. At 6-month follow-up, the co-trained CRs were more likely to meet at least monthly with their mentor (22.7% vs. 9.6%, P < .01) and more likely to identify their mentor as a facilitator for Teaching Project implementation (82.2% vs. 38.5%, P < .01). At 11-month follow-up, a higher percentage of co-trained CRs had completed their Teaching Project (34.0% vs. 15.1%, P < .05). Both CR groups had similarly large increases in other addiction medicine teaching outcomes. Mentors with more experience, including years of teaching, was associated with better CR Teaching Project outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Co-training generalist chief residents with a faculty mentor appeared to facilitate functional mentoring-driven Teaching Project implementation but did not further increase already high levels of other addiction medicine teaching. Faculty mentors with more years of teaching experience were more effective in facilitating Teaching Project implementation.

Advancing Alcohol and Other Drug Education among Social Work Faculty: An Evaluation of Social Work Faculty Immersion Training.

This study is an educational evaluation of participants (N = 50) in a four-day immersion training program funded by the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Using a pretest-posttest design, clinical social work faculty participants showed statistically significant (p < .001) improvement in overall alcohol and other drug-related knowledge (Baseline: Mean[SD] = 8.75 [2.44]; Post-Intervention: Mean[SD] = 13.88[1.96], Cohen's d = -2.16) in the domains of screening/assessment, brief intervention, medication-assisted treatment, and recovery and relapse prevention. Corresponding increases were also observed for faculty confidence in teaching clinical skills related to alcohol and other drug screening, assessment, and treatment.

Training internal medicine residents to manage chronic pain and prescription opioid misuse.

BACKGROUND: Residents feel unprepared to care for patients with chronic pain on long-term opioids who exhibit signs of prescription opioid misuse. OBJECTIVE: Describe an educational intervention for internal medicine residents to improve confidence, practices, attitudes, and self-reported knowledge of resources for chronic pain and opioid misuse. METHODS: The intervention included 2 sessions. Session 1 (3 hours): a lecture on chronic pain, prescription opioid misuse, and opioid use disorders and communication skills practice. The residents were asked to use one of these skills during the following week. Session 2 (1.5 hours): debriefing of patient encounters and overview of: prescription opioid monitoring strategies, discontinuation of prescription opioids when appropriate, and treatment for opioid use disorders. Pre- and post-assessments evaluated change in residents' safe opioid prescribing confidence, self-reported practices, attitudes, and self-reported knowledge of available patient resources. RESULTS: Ninety-one residents completed the intervention, with 44 and 43 completing the pre- and post-assessments, respectively. Utilizing a 4-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree 4 = strongly agree), residents reported improved confidence in skills managing patients with chronic pain (3.0 vs. 2.4, P < .0001), skills identifying which patients with chronic pain have developed an opioid use disorder (3.0 vs. 2.4, P < .0001), and understanding how to monitor for benefit versus harm (3.0 vs. 2.5, P < .0005). They also noted improved ability identifying resources for patients with chronic pain and opioid use disorders. There was a nonsignificant improvement in resident reported comfort talking to patients about the need to discontinue opioids. Residents did not report an increase in use of safe opioid prescribing monitoring strategies or feelings of support in their prescribing decisions by preceptors. CONCLUSIONS: A brief training can improve residents' self-reported knowledge and confidence in managing patients with chronic pain and safe opioid prescribing practices. How this change in confidence affects patient care requires further study.

Safe and competent opioid prescribing education: Increasing dissemination with a train-the-trainer program.

BACKGROUND: Due to the high prevalence of prescription opioid misuse, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) mandated a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) requiring manufacturers of extended-release/long-acting (ER/LA) opioids to fund continuing education based on an FDA curricular Blueprint. This paper describes the Safe and Competent Opioid Prescribing Education (SCOPE of Pain) train-the-trainer program and its impact on (1) disseminating the SCOPE of Pain curriculum and (2) knowledge, confidence, attitudes, and performance of the participants of trainer-led compared with expert-led meetings. METHODS: SCOPE of Pain is a 3-hour ER/LA opioid REMS education. In addition to expert-led live statewide meetings, a 2-hour train-the-trainer (TTT) workshop was developed to increase dissemination nationally. The trainers were expected to conduct SCOPE of Pain meetings at their institutions. Participants of both the trainer-led and expert-led SCOPE of Pain programs were surveyed immediately post and 2 months post meetings to assess improvements in knowledge, confidence, attitudes, and self-reported safe opioid prescribing practices. RESULTS: During 9 months (May 2013 to February 2014), 89 trainers were trained during 9 TTT workshops in 9 states. Over 24 months (May 2013 to April 2015), 33% of the trainers conducted at least 1 SCOPE of Pain training, with a total of 79 meetings that educated 1419 participants. The average number of meetings of those who conducted at least 1 meeting was 2.8 (range: 1-19). The participants of the trainer-led programs were significantly more likely to be practicing in rural settings than those who participated in the expert-led meetings (39% vs. 26%, P < .001). At 2 months post training, there were no significant differences in improvements in participant knowledge, confidence, attitudes, and performance between expert-led and trainer-led meetings. CONCLUSIONS: The SCOPE of Pain TTT program holds promise as an effective dissemination strategy to increase guideline-based safe opioid prescribing knowledge, confidence, attitudes, and self-reported practices.

What do providers want to know about opioid prescribing? A qualitative analysis of their questions.

BACKGROUND: In 2012, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) responded to the opioid crisis with a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, requiring manufacturers of extended-release/long-acting opioids to fund continuing medical education based on the "FDA Blueprint for Prescriber Education." Topics in the Blueprint are "Assessing Patients for Treatment," "Initiating Therapy, Modifying Dosing, and Discontinuing Use," "Managing Therapy," "Counseling Patients and Caregivers about Safe Use," "General Drug Information," and "Specific Drug Information." Based on the FDA Blueprint, Boston University School of Medicine's "Safe and Competent Opioid Prescribing Education" (SCOPE of Pain) offers live trainings for physicians and other prescribers. During trainings, participants submit written questions about the curriculum and/or their clinical experiences. METHODS: The objective was to compare themes that arose from questions asked by SCOPE of Pain participants with content of the FDA Blueprint in order to evaluate how well the Blueprint answers prescribers' concerns. The authors conducted qualitative analyses of all 1309 questions submitted by participants in 29 trainings across 16 states from May 2013 to May 2015, using conventional content analysis to code the questions. Themes that emerged from participants' questions were then compared with the Blueprint. RESULTS: Most themes fell into the topic categories of the Blueprint. Five main themes diverged: Participants sought information on (1) safe alternatives to opioids, (2) overcoming barriers to safe opioid prescribing, (3) government regulations of opioid prescribing, (4) the role of marijuana in opioid prescribing, and (5) maintaining a positive provider-patient relationship while prescribing opioids. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to learning the mechanics of safe opioid prescribing, providers want to understand government regulations and effective patient communication skills. Aware of the limitations of opioids in managing chronic pain, providers seek advice on alternatives therapies. Future updates to the FDA Blueprint and other educational guidelines on opioid prescribing should address providers' additional questions.

The Surgeon General's Facing Addiction report: An historic document for health care.

The publication of Facing Addiction in America: The Surgeon General's Report on Alcohol, Drugs, and Health presents an historic moment not only for the field of addiction medicine, but also for the United States as a nation. The Board of Directors of the Association for Medical Education and Research in Substance Abuse (AMERSA), on behalf of our organization, would like to express our appreciation of the efforts of Dr. Vivek Murthy and the Surgeon General's Office to publish the first surgeon general's report covering substance misuse and substance use disorders.

Primary Care Patients with Drug Use Report Chronic Pain and Self-Medicate with Alcohol and Other Drugs.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is common among patients with drug use disorders. The prevalence of chronic pain and its consequences in primary care patients who use drugs is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To examine: 1) the prevalence of chronic pain and pain-related dysfunction among primary care patients who screen positive for drug use, and 2) the prevalence of substance use to self-medicate chronic pain in this population. DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional analysis. PARTICIPANTS: This study included 589 adult patients who screened positive for any illicit drug use or prescription drug misuse, recruited from an urban, hospital-based primary care practice. MAIN MEASURES: Both pain and pain-related dysfunction were assessed by numeric rating scales, and grouped as: (0) none, (1-3) mild, (4-6) moderate, (7-10) severe. Questions were asked about the use of substances to treat pain. KEY RESULTS: Among 589 participants, chronic pain was reported by 87% (95% CI: 84-90%), with 13% mild, 24% moderate and 50% severe. Pain-related dysfunction was reported by 74% (95% CI: 70-78%), with 15% mild, 23% moderate, and 36% severe. Of the 576 that used illicit drugs (i.e., marijuana, cocaine, and/or heroin), 51% reported using to treat pain (95% CI: 47-55% ). Of the 121 with prescription drug misuse, 81% (95% CI: 74-88%) used to treat pain. Of the 265 participants who reported any heavy drinking in the past 3 months, 38% (95% CI: 32-44%) did so to treat pain compared to 79% (95% CI: 68-90%) of the 57 high-risk alcohol users. CONCLUSIONS: Chronic pain and pain-related dysfunction were the norm for primary care patients who screened positive for drug use, with nearly one-third reporting both severe pain and severe pain-related dysfunction. Many patients using illicit drugs, misusing prescription drugs and using alcohol reported doing so in order to self-medicate their pain. Pain needs to be addressed when patients are counseled about their substance use.

SCOPE of Pain: An Evaluation of an Opioid Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy Continuing Education Program.

OBJECTIVE: Due to the high prevalence of prescription opioid misuse, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) mandated a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) requiring manufacturers of extended-release/long-acting (ER/LA) opioid analgesics to fund continuing education based on a FDA Blueprint. This article describes the Safe and Competent Opioid Prescribing Education (SCOPE of Pain) program, an ER/LA opioid analgesic REMS program, and its impact on clinician knowledge, confidence, attitudes, and self-reported clinical practice. METHOD: Participants of the 3-h SCOPE of Pain training completed pre-, immediate post- and 2-month post-assessments. SUBJECTS: The primary target group (n = 2,850), and a subset (n = 476) who completed a 2-month post-assessment, consisted of clinicians licensed to prescribe ER/LA opioid analgesics, who care for patients with chronic pain and who completed the 3-h training between February 28, 2013 and June 13, 2014. RESULTS: Immediately post-program, there was a significant increase in correct responses to knowledge questions (60% to 84%, P ≤ 0.02) and 87% of participants planned to make practice changes. At 2-months post-program, there continued to be a significant increase in correct responses to knowledge questions (60% to 69%, P ≤ 0.03) and 67% reported increased confidence in applying safe opioid prescribing care and 86% reported implementing practice changes. There was also an improvement in alignment of desired attitudes toward safe opioid prescribing. CONCLUSIONS: The SCOPE of Pain program improved knowledge, attitudes, confidence, and self-reported clinical practice in safe opioid prescribing. This national REMS program holds potential to improve the safe use of opioids for the treatment of chronic pain.

Brief intervention for daily marijuana users identified by screening in primary care: A subgroup analysis of the ASPIRE randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The use of brief intervention for decreasing frequent marijuana use holds potential, but its efficacy in primary care is not known. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of 2 brief interventions on marijuana use among daily/or almost daily marijuana users. DESIGN: Subgroup analysis of a 3-arm randomized clinical trial of 2 brief counseling interventions compared with no brief intervention on daily marijuana use in a primary care setting (ASPIRE). PARTICIPANTS: ASPIRE study participants who both reported 21-30 days of marijuana use during the past month and identified marijuana as their drug of most concern. INTERVENTIONS: (1) brief negotiated interview (BNI), a 10-15-minute structured interview, and (2) an adaptation of motivational interviewing (MOTIV), a 30-45-minute intervention. Control group participants received only a list of substance use treatment resources. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was number of days of marijuana use in the past 30 days at the 6-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes were (1) number of days of marijuana use at 6-week follow-up and (2) drug problems (Short Inventory of Problems-Drugs, SIP-D) at 6-week and 6-month follow-ups. Differences between intervention groups were analyzed using negative binomial regression models. RESULTS: Among the 167 eligible participants, we did not find any significant impact of either of the 2 interventions on past 30 days of marijuana use at 6 months (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR]: 0.95, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.75-1.15, P = .82 for BNI vs. control; aIRR: 1.02, 95% CI: 0.85-1.23, P = .82 for MOTIV vs. control). There was no significant impact on drug-related problems at 6-month follow-up (aIRR: 1.12, 95% CI: 0.69-1.82, P = .66 and aIRR: 1.46, 95% CI: 0.89-2.38, P = .27 for BNI vs. control and MOTIV vs. control, respectively). Results were similar at 6 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Brief intervention has no apparent impact on marijuana use or drug-related problems among primary care patients with frequent marijuana use identified by screening.