Association of Opioid Use Disorder Diagnosis with Management of Acute Low Back Pain: A Medicare Retrospective Cohort Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Practice guidelines recommend nonpharmacologic and nonopioid therapies as first-line pain treatment for acute pain. However, little is known about their utilization generally and among individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) for whom opioid and other pharmacologic therapies carry greater risk of harm. OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between a pre-existing OUD diagnosis and treatment of acute low back pain (aLBP). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using 2016-2019 Medicare data. PARTICIPANTS: Fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries with a new episode of aLBP. MAIN MEASURES: The main independent variable was OUD diagnosis measured prior to the first LBP claim (i.e., index date). Using multivariable logistic regressions, we assessed the following outcomes measured within 30 days of the index date: (1) nonpharmacologic therapies (physical therapy and/or chiropractic care), and (2) prescription opioids. Among opioid recipients, we further assessed opioid dose and co-prescription of gabapentin. Analyses were conducted overall and stratified by receipt of physical therapy, chiropractic care, opioid fills, or gabapentin fills during the 6 months before the index date. KEY RESULTS: We identified 1,263,188 beneficiaries with aLBP, of whom 3.0% had OUD. Two-thirds (65.8%) did not receive pain treatments of interest at baseline. Overall, nonpharmacologic therapy receipt was less prevalent and opioid and nonopioid pharmacologic therapies were more common among beneficiaries with OUD than those without OUD. Beneficiaries with OUD had lower odds of receiving nonpharmacologic therapies (aOR = 0.62, 99%CI = 0.58-0.65) and higher odds of prescription opioid receipt (aOR = 2.24, 99%CI = 2.17-2.32). OUD also was significantly associated with increased odds of opioid doses ≥ 90 morphine milligram equivalents/day (aOR = 2.43, 99%CI = 2.30-2.56) and co-prescription of gabapentin (aOR = 1.15, 99%CI = 1.09-1.22). Similar associations were observed in stratified groups though magnitudes differed. CONCLUSIONS: Medicare beneficiaries with aLBP and OUD underutilized nonpharmacologic pain therapies and commonly received opioids at high doses and with gabapentin. Complementing the promulgation of practice guidelines with implementation science could improve the uptake of evidence-based nonpharmacologic therapies for aLBP.

Priorities for HIV and chronic pain research: results from a survey of individuals with lived experience.

The Global Task Force on Chronic Pain in HIV published seven research priorities in the field of HIV-associated chronic pain in 2019: (1) causes; (2) management; (3) treatment individualization and integration with addiction treatment; (4) mental and social health factors; (5) prevalence; (6) treatment cost effectiveness; and (7) prevention. The current study used a web-based survey to determine whether the research topics were aligned with the priorities of adults with lived experiences of HIV and chronic pain. We also collected information about respondents' own pain and treatment experiences. We received 311 survey responses from mostly US-based respondents. Most respondents reported longstanding, moderate to severe, multisite pain, commonly accompanied by symptoms of anxiety and/or depression. The median number of pain treatments tried was 10 (IQR = 8, 13), with medications and exercise being the most common modalities, and opioids being viewed as the most helpful. Over 80% of respondents considered all research topics either "extremely important" or "very important". Research topic #2, which focused on optimizing management of pain in people with HIV, was accorded the greatest importance by respondents. These findings suggest good alignment between the priorities of researchers and US-based people with lived experience of HIV-associated chronic pain.

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.

The Global Task Force for Chronic Pain in People with HIV (PWH): Developing a research agenda in an emerging field.

Chronic pain is a common comorbidity in people with HIV (PWH), with prevalence estimates of 25-85%. Research in this area is growing, but significant gaps remain. A Global Task Force of HIV experts was organized to brainstorm a scientific agenda and identify measurement domains critical to advancing research in this field. Experts were identified through literature searches and snowball sampling. Two online questionnaires were developed by Task Force members. Questionnaire 1 asked participants to identify knowledge gaps in the field of HIV and chronic pain and identify measurement domains in studies of chronic pain in PWH. Responses were ranked in order of importance in Questionnaire 2, which was followed by a group discussion. 29 experts completed Questionnaire 1, 25 completed Questionnaire 2, and 21 participated in the group. Many important clinical and research priorities emerged, including the need to examine etiologies of chronic pain in PWH. Pain-related measurement domains were discussed, with a primary focus on domains that could be assessed in a standardized manner across various cohorts that include PWH in different countries. We collaboratively identified clinical and research priorities, as well as gaps in standardization of measurement domains, that can be used to move the field forward.

Dispensary Staff Perceptions About the Benefits, Risks, and Safety of Cannabis for Medical Purposes.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic use of cannabis is common in the United States (up to 18.7% of Americans aged ≥12), and dispensaries in the US are proliferating rapidly. However, the efficacy profile of medical cannabis is unclear, and customers often rely on dispensary staff for purchasing decisions. The objective was to describe cannabis dispensary staff perceptions of medical cannabis benefits and risks, as well as its safety in high-risk populations. METHODS: Online Survey study conducted using Qualtrics from February 13, 2020 to October 2, 2020 with a national sample of dispensary staff who reportedinteracting with customers in a cannabis dispensary selling tetrahydrocannabinol-containing products. Participants were queried about benefits ("helpfulness") and risks ("worry") about cannabis for a variety of medical conditions, and safety in older adults and pregnant women on a five-point Likert scale. These results were then collapsed into three categories including "neutral" (3/5). "I don't know" (uncertainty) was a response option for helpfulness and safety. RESULTS: Participants (n = 434) were from 29 states and included patient-facing dispensary staff (40%); managers (32%); pharmacists (13%); and physicians, nurse practitioners, or physician assistants (5%). Over 80% of participants perceived cannabis as helpful for post-traumatic stress disorder (88.7%), epilepsy (85.3%) and cancer (83.4%). Generally, participants were not concerned about potential cannabis risks, including increased use of illicit drugs (76.3%), decreases in intelligence (74.4%), disrupted sleep (71.7%), and new/worsening health problems from medical cannabis use (70.7%). Cannabis was considered safe in older adults by 81.3% of participants, though there was much less consensus on safety in pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS: Cannabis dispensary staff generally view medical cannabis as beneficial and low-risk. However, improvements in dispensary staff training, an increased role for certifying clinicians, and interventions to reduce dispensary staff concerns (e.g., cost, judgment) may improve evidence-based staff recommendations to patients seeking medical cannabis.

Approaches to opioid prescribing in cancer survivors: Lessons learned from the general literature.

LAY SUMMARY: Guidance on how to approach opioid decisions for people beyond active cancer treatment is lacking. This editorial discusses strategies from the general literature that can be thoughtfully tailored to cancer survivors to provide patient-centered pain and opioid care.

Factors Associated with Long-Term Retention in Buprenorphine-Based Addiction Treatment Programs: a Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The average length of buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder is less than 6 months. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic review to determine what factors were associated with longer retention in buprenorphine treatment. DESIGN: We searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in February 2018. Articles were restricted to randomized controlled trials on human subjects, written in English, which contained ≥ 24 weeks of objective data on retention in buprenorphine treatment. MAIN MEASURES: We assessed whether dose of buprenorphine, treatment setting, or co-administration of behavioral therapy was associated with retention rates. KEY RESULTS: Over 14,000 articles were identified. Thirteen articles (describing 9 studies) met inclusion criteria. Measures of retention varied widely. Three studies compared doses of buprenorphine between 1 and 8 mg and showed significantly higher rates of retention with higher doses (p values < 0.01). All other studies utilized buprenorphine doses between 8 and 24 mg daily, without comparison. No study found a significant difference in retention between buprenorphine alone and buprenorphine plus behavioral therapy (p values > 0.05). Initiating buprenorphine while hospitalized or within criminal justice settings prior to outpatient treatment programs was significantly associated with retention in buprenorphine treatment (p values < 0.01 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Setting of treatment initiation and a higher buprenorphine dose are associated with improved long-term treatment retention. More objective data on buprenorphine treatment programs are needed, including a standardized approach to defining retention in buprenorphine treatment programs. REGISTRATION: This review was registered with PROSPERO (#CRD42019120336) in March 2019.

Patterns and Trends in Receipt of Opioids Among Patients Receiving Treatment for Cancer in a Large Health System.

BACKGROUND: Given limited evidence on opioid prescribing among patients receiving treatment for cancer during the ongoing opioid epidemic, our objective was to assess predictors of and trends in opioid receipt during cancer treatment, including how patterns differ by type of cancer. METHODS: Using cancer registry data, we identified patients with a first lifetime primary diagnosis of breast, colorectal, or lung cancer from 2013 to 2017 who underwent treatment within a large cancer center network. Cancer registry data were linked to electronic health record information on opioid prescriptions. We examined predictors of and trends in receipt of any opioid prescription within 12 months of cancer diagnosis. RESULTS: The percentage of patients receiving opioids varied by cancer type: breast cancer, 35% (1,996/5,649); colorectal, 37% (776/2,083); lung, 47% (1,259/2,654). In multivariable analysis, opioid use in the year before cancer diagnosis was the factor most strongly associated with receipt of opioids after cancer diagnosis, with 4.90 (95% CI, 4.10-5.86), 5.09 (95% CI, 3.88-6.69), and 3.31 (95% CI, 2.68-4.10) higher odds for breast, colorectal, and lung cancers, respectively. We did not observe a consistent decline in opioid prescribing over time, and trends differed by cancer type. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that prescription of opioids to patients with cancer varies by cancer type and other factors. In particular, patients are more likely to receive opioids after cancer diagnosis if they were previously exposed before diagnosis, suggesting that pain among patients with cancer may commonly include non-cancer-related pain. Heterogeneity and complexity among patients with cancer must be accounted for in developing policies and guidelines aimed at addressing pain management while minimizing the risk of opioid misuse.

Concurrent prescribing of opioids with other sedating medications after cancer diagnosis: a population-level analysis.

PURPOSE: Cancer is a major reason for concurrent prescription of opioids with other sedating medications-particularly benzodiazepines and gabapentinoids-yet population-based assessments of the extent and predictors of concurrent prescribing among clinically and demographically diverse patients with cancer are lacking. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with non-metastatic cancer using North Carolina cancer registry data linked with Medicare and private insurance claims (2013-2016). We used modified Poisson regression to assess associations of patient characteristic with adjusted relative risk (aRR) of new concurrent prescribing of opioids with benzodiazepines or gabapentinoids after diagnosis. RESULTS: Overall, 15% of patients were concurrently prescribed opioids with benzodiazepines or gabapentinoids. Characteristics independently associated with an increased risk of concurrent prescribing included cancer type (e.g., aRR cervical vs. colorectal cancer: 1.55, 95% CI: 1.12-2.14); prior use of opioids (aRR: 2.43, 95% CI:2.21-2.67), benzodiazepines (aRR: 4.08, 95% CI: 3.72-4.48), or gabapentinoids (3.82, 95% CI: 3.31-4.39), and premorbid mental health conditions, including substance use disorder (aRR: 1.27, 95% CI: 1.05-1.54). Black and Hispanic patients were less likely to experience concurrent prescribing (aRR, Black vs. White: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.15-0.83; aRR, Hispanic vs. White: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.66-0.85). CONCLUSION: Approximately 1 in 7 patients with cancer was concurrently prescribed opioids with other sedating medications. Associations between patient characteristics and risk of concurrent prescribing highlight predictors of concurrent prescribing and suggest a rationale for systematic assessment of substance use history at diagnosis. Future research could explore inequitable pain and symptom management and investigate risk of adverse medication-related events.

Using Intervention Mapping to Develop a Novel Pain Self-Management Intervention for People with Cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is common among patients with cirrhosis and is challenging to treat. While promising, pain self-management (PSM) interventions have not been tailored to this population's needs. AIMS: To design a PSM intervention for patients with cirrhosis. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews with 17 patients with cirrhosis, 12 hepatologists, and 6 administrators from two medical centers were conducted to inform a rigorous, structured intervention mapping (IM) process. Qualitative content analysis was guided by social cognitive theory (SCT) and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and incorporated into intervention development. A planning group met regularly throughout the intervention, to reach consensus about how to use data and theory to develop the intervention through IM. RESULTS: Participants described barriers to PSM behaviors, including the absence of simple, evidence-based interventions for pain for patients with cirrhosis, inadequate provider knowledge, time, and training, and lack of champions, funding, and communication. Patients described high motivation to treat pain using behavioral methods including meditation, prayer, and exercise. The intervention was designed to address barriers to PSM behaviors for patients with cirrhosis, using behavior change methods that address knowledge, self-efficacy, and outcome expectations. The LEAP (Liver Education About Pain) intervention is a 12-week, modular intervention delivered by phone via individual and group sessions with a health coach. CONCLUSIONS: People with cirrhosis, hepatologists, and administrators informed this theory-driven, tailored PSM intervention, which was designed to be implementable in the real world.

Oncology Patient Smoking Cessation Treatment Preferences: Perceptions Across Former and Current Cigarette Smokers.

Although the benefits of smoking cessation following a cancer diagnosis have been well-established, up to 50% of cancer patients continue to smoke. Continued smoking through oncology treatment leads to increased risk of adverse events including reduced effectiveness of treatment, recurrence of additional malignancies, and reduced survival rates. Upon the cancer diagnosis, oncology healthcare providers become the primary trusted source of information and support, which represents a great opportunity to assist these patients to quit smoking. However, it remains unclear how oncology healthcare providers can best address smoking cessation from a patient-centered perspective. The present study surveyed oncology patients from Birmingham, AL, classified as either former (n = 174) or current smokers (n = 81) to identify their perceptions regarding the role of oncology healthcare providers in their smoking cessation efforts. Current smokers were more likely to be younger, received their cancer diagnosis within the past 3 years, and have a cancer diagnosis with high smoking-related public awareness (i.e., head, neck, or lung) compared to former smokers. Additionally, 81% of current smokers reported experiencing smoking cessation discussions with their oncology healthcare providers with the most prominent recommendations being use of nicotine replacement therapies (46.9%) and medication (35.8%). These smoking cessation experiences align with patient preferences. However, despite the frequency of smoking cessation discussions, current smokers demonstrated an ambivalence in understanding the risks of continued smoking during their medical treatment. Overall, this study highlights the important role of oncology healthcare providers on implementing smoking cessation intervention for their patients who continue to smoke.

Exemptions to state laws regulating opioid prescribing for patients with cancer-related pain: A summary.

BACKGROUND: Cancer-related pain is highly prevalent and is commonly treated with prescription opioids. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) now encourages conservative opioid prescribing in recognition of potential opioid-related risks. However, CDC guidelines have been misapplied to patients with cancer. Recent laws at the state level reflect the CDC's guidance by limiting opioid prescribing. It is unclear whether states exempt cancer-related pain, which may affect cancer pain management. Thus, the objective of this study was to summarize current state-level opioid prescribing laws and exemptions for patients with cancer. METHODS: Two study authors reviewed publicly available state records to identify the most recent opioid prescribing laws and cancer-related exemptions. Documents were required to have the force of law and be enacted at the time of the search (November 2020). RESULTS: Results indicated that 36 states had enacted formal legislation limiting the duration and/or dosage of opioid prescriptions, and this was largely focused on acute pain and/or initial prescriptions. Of these states, 32 (89%) explicitly exempted patients with cancer-related pain from opioid prescribing laws. Exemptions were broadly applied, with few states providing specific guidance for cancer-related pain prescribing. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that most states recognize the importance of prescription opioids in cancer-related pain management. However, drafting nuanced and clinically relevant opioid legislation is challenging for a heterogenous population. Additionally, current attempts to regulate opioid prescribing by state law may unintentionally undermine patient-centered approaches to pain management. Additional resources are needed to facilitate clarity at the intersection of opioid-related legislation and clinical management for cancer-related pain. LAY SUMMARY: In this review of state-level legislation, current limitations on opioid prescribing are summarized and detailed information is provided on exemptions for patients with cancer. The majority of states have enacted specific dosage and/or duration limitations on opioid prescribing while including broad exemptions for cancer-related pain. Cancer-related pain exemptions are important to include, as is consistent with national and professional guidelines (eg, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). However, these exemptions may also unintentionally undermine patient-centered approaches to pain management. Additional resources, including specific guidance for patients with cancer, are needed to facilitate clarity at the intersection of opioid-related legislation and clinical pain management. ​.

Predictors of pain-related functional impairment among people living with HIV on long-term opioid therapy.

People living with HIV (PLWH) have high levels of functional impairment due to pain, also called pain interference. Long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) is commonly prescribed for chronic pain among PLWH. We sought to better understand the predictors of pain interference, measured with the Brief Pain Inventory Interference subscale (BPI-I), among PLWH with chronic pain on LTOT. Using a prospective cohort of PLWH on LTOT we developed a model to identify predictors of increased pain interference over 1 year of follow up. Participants (n = 166) were 34% female, 72% African American with a median age of 55 years, and 40% had severe pain interference (BPI-I ≥ 7). In multivariable models, substance use disorder, depressive symptoms, PTSD symptoms, financial instability, and higher opioid doses were associated with increased pain interference. Measures of behavioral health and socioeconomic status had the most consistent association with pain interference. In contrast, the biomedical aspects of chronic pain and LTOT - comorbidities, duration of pain - were not predictive of pain interference. PLWH with chronic pain on LTOT with lower socioeconomic status and behavioral health symptoms have higher risk of pain interference. Addressing the social determinants of health and providing access to behavioral health services could improve patients' pain-related functional status.

Prevalence and impact of comorbid chronic pain and cigarette smoking among people living with HIV.

Rates of chronic pain and cigarette smoking are each substantially higher among people living with HIV (PLWH) than in the general population. The goal of these analyses was to examine the prevalence and impact of comorbid chronic pain and cigarette smoking among PLWH. Participants included 3289 PLWH (83% male) who were recruited from five HIV clinics. As expected, the prevalence of smoking was higher among PLWH with chronic pain (41.9%), than PLWH without chronic pain (26.6%, p < .0001), and the prevalence of chronic pain was higher among current smokers (32.9%), than among former (23.6%) or never (17%) smokers (ps < .0001). PLWH who endorsed comorbid chronic pain and smoking (vs. nonsmokers without chronic pain) were more likely to report cocaine/crack and cannabis use, be prescribed long-term opioid therapy, and have virologic failure, even after controlling for relevant sociodemographic and substance-related variables (ps < .05). These results contribute to a growing empirical literature indicating that chronic pain and cigarette smoking frequently co-occur, and extend this work to a large sample of PLWH. Indeed, PLWH may benefit from interventions that are tailored to address bidirectional pain-smoking effects in the context of HIV.

Hazardous alcohol use is associated with greater pain interference and prescription opioid misuse among persons living with HIV and chronic pain.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol use is common among persons living with HIV (PLWH), who often experience chronic pain, yet its impact on pain and opioid misuse is not fully characterized. METHODS: We assessed associations between hazardous alcohol use and pain interference, defined as the self-reported impact of pain on daily living, pain severity, and risk for opioid misuse among PLWH who were on long-term opioid therapy (LTOT). A cohort was recruited as part of the "Targeting Effective Analgesia in Clinics for HIV" (TEACH) study, a randomized controlled trial to improve LTOT in HIV clinics. The Alcohol Use Disorders Test (AUDIT), Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and the Current Opioid Misuse Measure (COMM) were administered at both baseline and 12-months. Linear mixed and generalized estimating equation models, incorporating data from both time points, evaluated associations between hazardous alcohol use (AUDIT ≥8) and: pain interference (0-10), pain severity (0-10), and opioid misuse risk (COMM ≥13), adjusting for age, gender, depressive symptoms, use of non-alcohol substances, time-point, and study-arm. RESULTS: The sample was comprised of 166 participants, of which 31 (19%) reported hazardous alcohol use. The majority were male (65%), black (72%), and the mean age was 54 (range: 29-77). Hazardous alcohol use was significantly associated with higher pain interference (adjusted mean difference [AMD]: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.08, 1.96) and higher odds of opioid misuse risk (AOR: 3.73, 95% CI: 1.88-7.39), but not pain severity (AMD: 0.47, 95% CI: - 0.35, 1.29). CONCLUSIONS: Hazardous alcohol use was associated with greater functional impairment in daily living from their pain and higher odds for prescription opioid misuse in this study of PLWH on LTOT. Providers should be attentive to alcohol use among PLWH who are prescribed opioids given associations with pain and opioid misuse. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02564341 (Intervention, September 30, 2015) and NCT02525731 (Patient Cohort, August 17, 2015). Both prospectively registered.

Dismantling racism against Black, Indigenous, and people of color across the substance use continuum: A position statement of the association for multidisciplinary education and research in substance use and addiction.

The Association for Multidisciplinary Education and Research in Substance Use and Addiction (AMERSA) acknowledges that racism profoundly affects persons who use alcohol and other drugs. Racism's deadly effects compounded with other social determinants of health result in a cascade of negative impacts. The AMERSA Board of Directors (BOD) proposes an initial set of strategies to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion using a framework that speaks to four key AMERSA experiences: engagement, education, mentorship, and leadership. Through these strategies, AMERSA commits to promoting equity and inclusion to dismantle the individual, institutional, and structural racism that has permeated the United States for centuries.

Medical Record Documentation About Opioid Tapering: Examining Benefit-to-Harm Framework and Patient Engagement.

OBJECTIVE: Guidelines recommend that clinicians make decisions about opioid tapering for patients with chronic pain using a benefit-to-harm framework and engaging patients. Studies have not examined clinician documentation about opioid tapering using this framework. DESIGN AND SETTING: Thematic and content analysis of clinician documentation about opioid tapering in patients' medical records in a large academic health system. METHODS: Medical records were reviewed for patients aged 18 or older, without cancer, who were prescribed stable doses of long-term opioid therapy between 10/2015 and 10/2016 then experienced an opioid taper (dose reduction ≥30%) between 10/2016 and 10/2017. Inductive thematic analysis of clinician documentation within six months of taper initiation was conducted to understand rationale for taper, and deductive content analysis was conducted to determine the frequencies of a priori elements of a benefit-to-harm framework. RESULTS: Thematic analysis of 39 patients' records revealed 1) documented rationale for tapering prominently cited potential harms of continuing opioids, rather than observed harms or lack of benefits; 2) patient engagement was variable and disagreement with tapering was prominent. Content analysis found no patients' records with explicit mention of benefit-to-harm assessments. Benefits of continuing opioids were mentioned in 56% of patients' records, observed harms were mentioned in 28%, and potential harms were mentioned in 90%. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, documentation of opioid tapering focused on potential harms of continuing opioids, indicated variable patient engagement, and lacked a complete benefit-to-harm framework. Future initiatives should develop standardized ways of incorporating a benefit-to-harm framework and patient engagement into clinician decisions and documentation about opioid tapering.

Disagreement and Uncertainty Among Experts About how to Respond to Marijuana Use in Patients on Long-term Opioids for Chronic Pain: Results of a Delphi Study.

BACKGROUND: Marijuana use is common among patients on long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) for chronic pain, but there is a lack of evidence to guide clinicians' response. OBJECTIVE: To generate expert consensus about responding to marijuana use among patients on LTOT. DESIGN: Analysis from an online Delphi study. SETTING/SUBJECTS: Clinician experts in pain and opioid management across the United States. METHODS: Participants generated management strategies in response to marijuana use without distinction between medical and nonmedical use, then rated the importance of each management strategy from 1 (not at all important) to 9 (extremely important). A priori rules for consensus were established, and disagreement was explored using cases. Thematic analysis of free-text responses examined factors that influenced participants' decision-making. RESULTS: Of 42 participants, 64% were internal medicine physicians. There was consensus that it is not important to taper opioids as an initial response to marijuana use. There was disagreement about the importance of tapering opioids if there is a pattern of repeated marijuana use without clinical suspicion for a cannabis use disorder (CUD) and consensus that tapering is of uncertain importance if there is suspicion for CUD. Three themes influenced experts' perceptions of the importance of tapering: 1) benefits and harms of marijuana for the individual patient, 2) a spectrum of belief about the overall riskiness of marijuana use, and 3) variable state laws or practice policies. CONCLUSIONS: Experts disagree and are uncertain about the importance of opioid tapering for patients with marijuana use. Experts were influenced by patient factors, provider beliefs, and marijuana policy, highlighting the need for further research.

Enhanced facilitation and diminished inhibition characterizes the pronociceptive endogenous pain modulatory balance of persons living with HIV and chronic pain.

Chronic pain in persons living with HIV (PLWH) may be related to alterations in endogenous pain modulatory processes (e.g., high facilitation and low inhibition of nociception) that promote exaggerated pain responses, known as hyperalgesia, and central nervous system (CNS) sensitization. This observational study examined differences in endogenous pain modulatory processes between 59 PLWH with chronic pain, 51 PLWH without chronic pain, and 50 controls without HIV or chronic pain. Quantitative sensory testing for temporal summation (TS) of mechanical and heat pain as well as conditioned pain modulation (CPM) were used to assess endogenous pain facilitatory and inhibitory processes, respectively. Associations among TS, CPM, and self-reported clinical pain severity were also examined in PLWH with chronic pain. Findings demonstrated significantly greater TS of mechanical and heat pain for PLWH with chronic pain compared to PLWH without chronic pain and controls. CPM effects were present in controls, but not in either PLWH with or without chronic pain. Among PLWH with chronic pain, greater TS of mechanical pain was significantly associated with greater average clinical pain severity. Results of this study suggest that enhanced facilitation and diminished inhibition characterizes the pronociceptive endogenous pain modulatory balance of persons living with HIV and chronic pain.