Screening Tools Validated in the Outpatient Pain Management Setting Poorly Predict Opioid Misuse in the Emergency Department: A Pilot Study

Screening for harmful substance use in emergency departments: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Substance use-related emergency department (ED) visits have increased substantially in North America. Screening for substance use in EDs is recommended; best approaches are unclear. This systematic review synthesizes evidence on diagnostic accuracy of ED screening tools to detect harmful substance use.

METHODS

We included derivation or validation studies, with or without comparator, that included adult (≥ 18 years) ED patients and evaluated screening tools to identify general or specific substance use disorders or harmful use. Our search strategy combined concepts Emergency Department AND Screening AND Substance Use. Trained reviewers assessed title/abstracts and full-text articles for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias (QUADAS-2) independently and in duplicate. Reviewers resolved disagreements by discussion. Primary investigators adjudicated if necessary. Heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. We descriptively summarized results.

RESULTS

Our search strategy yielded 2696 studies; we included 33. Twenty-one (64%) evaluated a North American population. Fourteen (42%) applied screening among general ED patients. Screening tools were administered by research staff (n = 21), self-administered by patients (n = 10), or non-research healthcare providers (n = 1). Most studies evaluated alcohol use screens (n = 26), most commonly the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT; n = 14), Cut down/Annoyed/Guilty/Eye-opener (CAGE; n = 13), and Rapid Alcohol Problems Screen (RAPS/RAPS4/RAPS4-QF; n = 12). Four studies assessing six tools and screening thresholds for alcohol abuse/dependence in North American patients (AUDIT ≥ 8; CAGE ≥ 2; Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition [DSM-IV-2] ≥ 1; RAPS ≥ 1; National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism [NIAAA]; Tolerance/Worry/Eye-opener/Amnesia/K-Cut down [TWEAK] ≥ 3) reported both sensitivities and specificities ≥ 83%. Two studies evaluating a single alcohol screening question (SASQ) (When was the last time you had more than X drinks in 1 day?, X = 4 for women; X = 5 for men) reported sensitivities 82-85% and specificities 70-77%. Five evaluated screening tools for general substance abuse/dependence (Relax/Alone/Friends/Family/Trouble [RAFFT] ≥ 3, Drug Abuse Screening Test [DAST] ≥ 4, single drug screening question, Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test [ASSIST] ≥ 42/18), reporting sensitivities 64%-90% and specificities 61%-100%. Studies' risk of bias were mostly high or uncertain.

CONCLUSIONS

Six screening tools demonstrated both sensitivities and specificities ≥ 83% for detecting alcohol abuse/dependence in EDs. Tools with the highest sensitivities (AUDIT ≥ 8; RAPS ≥ 1) and that prioritize simplicity and efficiency (SASQ) should be prioritized.

The prevalence of prescription opioid use and misuse among emergency department patients in The Netherlands

RATIONALE

Prescription opioid use and misuse have increased rapidly in many Western countries in the past decade. Patients (mis)using opioids are at risk of presenting to the emergency department (ED) with opioid-related problems. European data concerning prescription opioid (mis)use among the ED population is lacking.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

This study aims to determine prevalence of prescription opioid use, misuse, and opioid use disorder (OUD) among Dutch ED patients. Secondary objectives were to explore factors associated with prescription opioid misuse and the number of patients discharged with a new opioid prescription.

METHODS

In a cross-sectional multicenter study at three hospitals in the Netherlands, adult ED patients were screened for current prescription opioid use. Opioid users filled out questionnaires regarding opioid (mis)use, and underwent a structured interview to assess OUD criteria. The primary outcomes were prevalence rates of (1) current prescription opioid use, (2) prescription opioid misuse (based on a Current Opioid Misuse Measure [COMM] score > 8), (3) OUD, based on DSM-5 criteria. Independent T-tests, Pearson χ2 and Fisher's Exact tests were used to analyse differences in characteristics between groups.

RESULTS

A total of 997 patients were screened, of which 15% (n = 150) used prescription opioids. Out of 93 patients assessed, 22.6% (n = 21) showed signs of prescription opioid misuse, and 9.8% (n = 9, 95% CI: 4.5-17.8) fulfilled criteria for OUD. A medical history of psychiatric disorder was significantly more common in patients with prescription opioid misuse and OUD.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that prescription opioid use is relatively common in ED patients in the Netherlands, compared to the overall population. Over one fifth of these patients shows signs of opioid misuse or OUD. Awareness among ED personnel about the high prevalence of prescription opioid (mis)use in their population is critical for signalling opioid-related problems.

Toward a Psychological Model of Chemical Coping with Opioids in Cancer Care

LEARNING OBJECTIVES AFTER PARTICIPATING IN THIS CME ACTIVITY, THE PSYCHIATRIST SHOULD BE BETTER ABLE TO

• Outline the risk factors involved with opioid accessibility in patients receiving treatment for cancer.• Identify factors to address in order to mitigate risk for opioid misuse during cancer care.

ABSTRACT

Most patients with advanced cancer receive treatment for related pain. Opioid accessibility, however, is a risk factor for misuse, which can present care challenges and quality-of-life concerns. There is a lack of consistent universal screening prior to initiation of opioid prescribing. One crucial issue in treating this population is adequately identifying and mitigating risk factors driving opioid misuse. Drawing on theory and research from addiction science, psychology, palliative care, and oncology, the presented conceptual framework suggests that risk factors for opioid misuse during cancer care can be stratified into historical, current, malleable, and unmalleable factors. The framework identifies necessary factors to address in order to mitigate risk for opioid misuse during cancer care, and offers key directions for future research.

Use of clinical phenotypes to characterize emergency department patients administered intravenous opioids for acute pain

OBJECTIVE

Individual experience with opioids is highly variable. Some patients with acute pain do not experience pain relief with opioids, and many report no euphoria or dysphoric reactions. In this study, we describe the clinical phenotypes of patients who receive intravenous opioids.

METHODS

This was an emergency department-based study in which we enrolled patients who received an intravenous opioid. We collected 0 to 10 pain scores prior to opioid administration and 15 minutes after. We also used 0 to 10 instruments to determine how high and how much euphoria the patient felt after receipt of the opioid. Using a cutoff point of ≥50% improvement in pain and the median score on the high and euphoria scales, we assigned each participant to one of the following clinical phenotypes: pain relief with feeling high or euphoria, pain relief without feeling high or euphoria, inadequate relief with feeling high or euphoria, and inadequate relief without feeling high or euphoria.

RESULTS

A total of 713 patients were enrolled, 409 (57%) of whom reported not feeling high, and 465 (65%) reported no feeling of euphoria. Median percent improvement in pain was 37.5% (interquartile range, 12.5%-60.0%). One hundred seventy-eight participants (25%) were classified as experiencing pain relief with euphoria or feeling high, 190 (27%) experienced inadequate relief with euphoria or feeling high, 101 (14%) experienced pain relief without euphoria or feeling high, and 244 (34%) reported inadequate relief without euphoria or feeling high.

CONCLUSION

Among patients who receive intravenous opioids in the emergency department, the experiences of pain relief and euphoria are highly variable. For many, pain relief is independent of feeling high.

Opioid-Related Risk Screening Measures for the Emergency Care Setting

Efforts to minimize the impact of prescribed opioids on future adverse outcomes are reliant on emergency care providers' ability to screen and detect opioid use disorder (OUD). Many prescriptions are initiated in the emergency department (ED) for acute pain; thus, validated measures are especially needed. Our systematic review describes the available opioid-related screening measures identified through search of the available literature. Measures were categorized by intent and applied clinical setting. We found 44 articles, identifying 15 screening measures. Of these, nine were developed to screen for current opioid misuse and five to screen for risk of future opioid misuse. None were created for use outside of a chronic pain setting. Many measures were applied differently from intended purpose. Although several measures are available, screening for adverse opioid outcomes in the ED is hampered by lack of validated instruments. Development of clarified conceptual models and ED-specific research is necessary to limit OUD.

Rationalisation of long-term high-dose opioids for chronic pain: development of an intervention and conceptual framework

There has been a large increase in the number of prescriptions for opioid drugs in the United Kingdom over the last 20 years or more and the prescribing of opioids in high doses continues to increase. Much opioid prescribing is for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) despite serious doubts about the long-term effectiveness of opioids for this indication. Clinical experience is that there are increasing numbers of patients who are on high dosages of opioid drugs over sustained periods which provide limited or no pain relief while having significant negative effects on functioning and quality of life. The aim of this article is to bring readers' attention to some clinical observations of the CNCP population with high doses and to describe an intervention to reduce these doses. Many of these patients have no clinical features of addiction; we suggest that those who show little or no substance misuse behaviours are best understood as a distinct clinical population who have different treatment needs. In order to understand and treat these patients, a model is required which, rather than seeing the problem as lying solely with the patient, focuses on the interaction between the individual and his or her environment and seeks a change in what the patient does every day, rather than a simple, and largely unattainable, goal of symptom elimination. The clinician authors worked together to develop an intervention based upon approaches taken from both pain management and psychiatric practice. A detailed description of this rapid opioid reduction intervention (RORI) is provided along with some preliminary outcome data.

An international multidisciplinary consensus statement on the prevention of opioid-related harm in adult surgical patients

This international multidisciplinary consensus statement was developed to provide balanced guidance on the safe peri-operative use of opioids in adults. An international panel of healthcare professionals evaluated the literature relating to postoperative opioid-related harm, including persistent postoperative opioid use; opioid-induced ventilatory impairment; non-medical opioid use; opioid diversion and dependence; and driving under the influence of prescription opioids. Recommended strategies to reduce harm include pre-operative assessment of the risk of persistent postoperative opioid use; use of an assessment of patient function rather than unidimensional pain scores alone to guide adequacy of analgesia; avoidance of long-acting (modified-release and transdermal patches) opioid formulations and combination analgesics; limiting the number of tablets prescribed at discharge; providing deprescribing advice; avoidance of automatic prescription refills; safe disposal of unused medicines; reducing the risk of opioid diversion; and better education of healthcare professionals, patients and carers. This consensus statement provides a framework for better prescribing practices that could help reduce the risk of postoperative opioid-related harm in adults.

Emergency physician risk assessment practices prior to prescribing opioids

BACKGROUND

Safer opioid prescribing remains a crucial issue for emergency physicians. Policy statements and guidelines recommend deliberate risk assessment for likelihood of current or future opioid use disorder prior to prescribing opioids. However, the practice patterns of emergency physicians remain underreported.

METHODS

We surveyed emergency physicians across Canada about their local opioid prescribing policies, their practice patterns of risk assessment prior to prescribing opioids, and which clinical risk factors they find most important.

RESULTS

The response rate was 20.4% (n = 312/1532). 59.8% of respondents report usually or always assessing for risk. Physicians rely on gestalt (80.3%), targeted histories based on risk factors in the literature (55.6%) or their experience (57.6%), and reviewing medical (83.1%) and medication records (75.6%). Contacting primary prescribers is uncommon (16.3%). A minority routinely use opioid prescribing risk assessment tools (6.4%), have local opioid prescribing policies (27%), or make use of electronic medical record functions to assist risk stratifying (2.4%).

CONCLUSION

Many Canadian emergency physicians make risk assessments based on gestalt rather than identifying literature-based risk factors. This conflicts with guidelines calling for routine comprehensive assessment. Further efforts should be directed towards education in optimizing risk assessment; and towards system-level initiatives such as clear local prescribing policies, electronic-systems functionality, and developing assessment tools for use in the ED.

Advances in prescription drug monitoring program research: a literature synthesis (June 2018 to December 2019)

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Nearly every U.S. state operates a prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) to monitor dispensing of controlled substances. These programs are often considered key policy levers in the ongoing polydrug epidemic. Recent years have seen rapid growth of peer-reviewed literature examining PDMP consultation and the impacts of these programs on diverse patient populations and health outcomes. This literature synthesis presents a review of studies published from June 2018 to December 2019 and provides relevant updates from the perspective of three researchers in this field.

RECENT FINDINGS

The analyzed studies were primarily distributed across three overarching research focus areas: outcome evaluations (n = 29 studies), user surveys (n = 23), and surveillance (n = 22). Identified themes included growing awareness of the unintended consequences of PDMPs on access to opioids, effects on benzodiazepines and stimulant prescribing, challenges with workflow integration across multiple specialties, and new opportunities for applied data science.

SUMMARY

There is a critical gap in existing PDMP literature assessing how these programs have impacted psychiatrists, their prescribing behaviors, and their patients. Although PDMPs have improved population-level monitoring of controlled substances from medical sources, their role in responding to a drug epidemic shifting to illicitly manufactured drugs is under scrutiny.

Opioid Use During the Six Months After an Emergency Department Visit for Acute Pain: A Prospective Cohort Study

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Despite the frequent use of opioids to treat acute pain, the long-term risks and analgesic benefits of an opioid prescription for an individual emergency department (ED) patient with acute pain are still poorly understood and inadequately quantified. Our objective was to determine the frequency of recurrent or persistent opioid use during the 6 months after the ED visit METHODS: This was a prospective, observational cohort study of opioid-naive patients presenting to 2 EDs for acute pain who were prescribed an opioid at discharge. Patients were followed by telephone 6 months after the ED visit. Additionally, we reviewed the statewide prescription monitoring program database. Outcomes included frequency of recurrent and persistent opioid use and frequency of persistent moderate or severe pain 6 months after the ED visit. Persistent opioid use was defined as filling greater than or equal to 6 prescriptions during the 6-month study period.

RESULTS

During 9 months beginning in November 2017, 733 patients were approached for participation. Four hundred eighty-four met inclusion criteria and consented to participate. Four hundred ten patients (85%) provided 6-month telephone data. The prescription monitoring database was reviewed for all 484 patients (100%). Most patients (317/484, 66%; 95% confidence interval 61% to 70%) filled only the initial prescription they received in the ED. One in 5 patients (102/484, 21%; 95% confidence interval 18% to 25%) filled at least 2 prescriptions within the 6-month period. Five patients (1%; 95% confidence interval 0% to 2%) met criteria for persistent opioid use. Of these 5 patients, all but 1 reported moderate or severe pain in the affected body part 6 months later.

CONCLUSION

Although 1 in 5 opioid-naive ED patients who received an opioid prescription for acute pain on ED discharge filled at least 2 opioid prescriptions in 6 months, only 1% had persistent opioid use. These patients with persistent opioid use were likely to report moderate or severe pain 6 months after the ED visit.

The utility of a statewide prescription drug-monitoring database vs the Current Opioid Misuse Measure for identifying drug-aberrant behaviors in emergency department patients already on opioids

BACKGROUND

The most recent guidelines on prescribing opioids from the United States Centers for Disease Control recommend that clinicians not prescribe opioids as first-line therapy for chronic non-cancer pain. If an opioid prescription is considered for a patient already on opioids, prescribers are encouraged to check the statewide prescription drug monitoring database (PDMP). Some additional guidelines recommend screening tools such as the Current Opioid Misuse Measure (COMM) which may also help identify drug-aberrant behaviors.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the PDMP and the Current Opioid Misuse Measure (COMM), a commonly-recommended screening tool for patients on opioids, in detecting drug-aberrant behaviors in patients already taking opioids at the time of ED presentation.

METHODS

Patients on opioids were enrolled prospectively in a mixed urban-suburban ED seeing approximately 65,000 patients per year. The sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratios of the PDMP and COMM were compared against objective criteria of drug-aberrant behaviors as documented in the electronic medical record (EMR) and medical examiner databases.

RESULTS

Compared to the COMM, the PDMP had similar sensitivity (36% vs 45%) and similar specificity (79% vs 55%), but better positive predictive value, better negative predictive value, and better diagnostic odds ratio. The combination of the PDMP and the COMM did not improve the detection of drug-aberrant behaviors.

CONCLUSIONS

The PDMP alone is a more useful as a screening instrument than either the COMM or the combination of the PDMP plus COMM in patients already taking opioids at time of ED presentation. However, the PDMP misses a majority of patients with documented drug-aberrant behaviors in the EMR, and should not be used in isolation to justify whether a particular opioid prescription is appropriate.