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

Recommendations for managing adults with chronic non-cancer pain in primary care: A systematic clinical guideline review

RATIONALE

Chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) is a leading driver of disability. Primary care clinicians treat most patients with CNCP. Yet, they are often unable to identify appropriate pain treatments, mainly due to concerns about the safety and effectiveness of available medications. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) can be useful tools to guide primary care clinicians in selecting pain treatments based on the best available evidence.

OBJECTIVES

To undertake a systematic review of CPGs that address the management of adults with CNCP, regardless of underlying condition type, in primary care.

METHOD

We systematically reviewed and synthesised current CPGs for managing adults with CNCP in primary care (2013-2023). We followed a stepwise systematic process to synthesise key CPG recommendations: extracted and analysed each recommendation, synthesised by compiling similar recommendations using a thematic analysis approach, and assessed the strength of CPG recommendations to create a final, unified set of recommendations. We focused on identifying CPGs containing recommendations on the following topics: (a) opioid pain management, (b) non-opioid pharmacological pain management, (c) non-pharmacological pain management, and (d) patient-centred communication around pain management, prevention, and organisation of care.

RESULTS

We included 13 CPGs, 8 of which focused solely on use of opioids, emphasising the lack of long-term effectiveness and safety concerns, being mainly based on the expert consensus. As an exception, high-quality evidence recommended referring patients with suspected opioid use disorder to specialist addiction services for medication-assisted treatment. Recommendations for non-opioid pain management were often contradictory and based on the expert consensus. Patient-centred pain management combined with exercise-based interventions and psychological therapies are appropriate strategies for managing patients with CNCP.

CONCLUSION

Most CPGs focused on opioid management, with contradictory recommendations for non-opioid management based on low-quality evidence. Additional research is needed to strengthen the evidence for using non-opioid and non-pharmacological interventions to manage patients with CNCP.

Opioid Maintenance Therapy: A Review of Methadone, Buprenorphine, and Naltrexone Treatments for Opioid Use Disorder

The rates of opioid use and opioid related deaths are escalating in the United States. Despite this, evidence-based treatments for Opioid Use Disorder are underutilized. There are three medications FDA approved for treatment of Opioid Use Disorder: Methadone, Buprenorphine, and Naltrexone. This article reviews the history, criteria, and mechanisms associated with Opioid Use Disorder. Pertinent pharmacology considerations, treatment strategies, efficacy, safety, and challenges of Methadone, Buprenorphine, and Naltrexone are outlined. Lastly, a practical decision making algorithm is discussed to address pertinent psychiatric and medical comorbidities when prescribing pharmacology for Opioid Use Disorder.

Impacts of State-Level Opioid Review Programs on Injured Workers and Their Health Care Providers: A Qualitative Study in Washington and Ohio

Policy Points Workers' compensation agencies have instituted opioid review policies to reduce unsafe prescribing. Providers reported more limited and cautious prescribing than in the past; both patients and providers reported collaborative pain-management relationships and satisfactory pain control for patients. Despite the fears articulated by pharmaceutical companies and patient advocates, opioid review programs have not generally resulted in unmanaged pain or reduced function in patients, anger or resistance from patients or providers, or damage to patient-provider relationships or clinical autonomy. Other insurance providers with broad physician networks may want to consider similar quality-improvement efforts to support safe opioid prescribing.

CONTEXT

Unsafe prescribing practices have been among the central causes of improper reception of opioids, unsafe use, and overdose in the United States. Workers' compensation agencies in Washington and Ohio have implemented opioid review programs (ORPs)-a form of quality improvement based on utilization review-to curb unsafe prescribing. Evidence suggests that such regulations indeed reduce unsafe prescribing, but pharmaceutical companies and patient advocates have raised concerns about negative impacts that could also result. This study explores whether three core sets of problems have actually come to pass: (1) unmanaged pain or reduced function among patients, (2) anger or resistance to ORPs from patients or providers, and (3) damage to patient-provider relationships or clinical autonomy.

METHODS

In-depth semistructured interviews were conducted with 48 patients (21 from Washington, 27 from Ohio) and 32 providers (18 from Washington, 14 from Ohio) who were purposively sampled to represent a range of injury and practice types. Thematic coding was conducted with codebooks developed using both inductive and deductive approaches.

FINDINGS

The consequences of opioid regulations have been generally positive: providers report more limited prescribing and a focus on multimodal pain control; patients report satisfactory pain control and recovery alongside collaborative relationships with providers. Participants attribute these patterns to a broad environment of opioid caution; they do not generally perceive workers' compensation policies as distinctly impactful. Both patients and providers comment frequently on the difficult aspects of interacting with workers' compensation agencies; effects of these range from simple inconvenience to delays in care, unmanaged pain, and reduced potential for physical recovery.

CONCLUSIONS

In general, the three types of feared negative impacts have not come to pass for either patients or providers. Although interacting with workers' compensation agencies involves difficulties typical of interacting with other insurers, opioid controls seem to have generally positive effects and are generally perceived of favorably.

Pain Care at Home to Amplify Function: Protocol Article

Guidelines recommend strategies to optimize opioid medication safety, including frequent reassessment of the benefits and harms of long-term opioid therapy. Prescribers, who are predominantly primary care providers (PCPs), may lack the training or resources to implement these guideline-concordant practices. Two interventions have been designed to assist PCPs and tested within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). Telemedicine Collaborative Management (TCM) provides primarily medication management support via care manager-prescriber teams. Cooperative Pain Education and Self-Management (COPES) promotes self-management strategies for chronic pain via cognitive behavior therapy techniques. Each intervention has been shown to improve prescribing and/or patient outcomes. The added value of combining these interventions is untested. With funding and central coordination by the Integrative Management of Chronic Pain and Opioid Use Disorder for Whole Recovery (IMPOWR) Network of the National Institutes of Health Helping to End Addiction Long-term (HEAL) Initiative, we will conduct a multisite patient-level randomized hybrid II effectiveness-implementation trial within VHA to compare TCM to TCM + COPES on the primary composite outcome of pain interference and opioid safety, secondary outcomes of alcohol use, anxiety, depression, and sleep, and other consensus IMPOWR Network measures. Implementation facilitation strategies informed by interviews with healthcare providers will target site-specific needs. The impact of these strategies on TCM implementation will be assessed via established formative and summative evaluation techniques. Economic analyses will evaluate intervention cost-effectiveness.

State-level policies and receipt of CDC-informed opioid thresholds among commercially insured new chronic opioid users

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the association of state-level policies on receipt of opioid regimens informed by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) morphine milligram equivalent (MME)/day recommendations.

DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study of new chronic opioid users (NCOUs).

SETTING

Commercially insured plans across the United States using IQVIA PharMetrics® Plus for Academics database with new chronic use between January 2014 and March 2015.

PARTICIPANTS

NCOUs with ≥60-day coverage of opioids within a 90-day period with ≥30-day opioid-free period prior to the date of the first qualifying opioid prescription.

INTERVENTIONS

State-level policies including Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) robustness and cannabis policies involving the presence of medical dispensaries and state-wide decriminalization.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

NCOUs were placed in three-tiered risk-based average MME/day thresholds: low (>0 to <50), medium (≥50 to <90), and high (≥90). Multinomial logistic regression was used to estimate the association of state-level policies with the thresholds while adjusting for relevant patient-specific factors.

RESULTS

NCOUs in states with medium or high PDMP robustness had lower odds of receiving medium (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 0.74; 95 percent confidence interval [CI]: 0.62-0.69) and high (AOR 0.74; 95 percent CI: 0.59-0.92) thresholds. With respect to cannabis policies, NCOUs in states with medical cannabis dispensaries had lower odds of receiving high (AOR 0.75; 95 percent CI: 0.60-0.93) thresholds, while cannabis decriminalization had higher odds of receiving high (AOR 1.24; 95 percent CI: 1.04-1.49) thresholds.

CONCLUSION

States with highly robust PDMPs and medical cannabis dispensaries had lower odds of receiving higher opioid thresholds, while cannabis decriminalization correlated with higher odds of receiving high opioid thresholds.

Association of initial opioid prescription duration and an opioid refill by pain diagnosis: Evidence from outpatient settings in ten US health systems

OBJECTIVE

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's 2022 Clinical Practice Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Pain cautioned that inflexible opioid prescription duration limits may harm patients. Information about the relationship between initial opioid prescription duration and a subsequent refill could inform prescribing policies and practices to optimize patient outcomes. We assessed the association between initial opioid duration and an opioid refill prescription.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adults ≥19 years of age in 10 US health systems between 2013 and 2018 from outpatient care with a diagnosis for back pain without radiculopathy, back pain with radiculopathy, neck pain, joint pain, tendonitis/bursitis, mild musculoskeletal pain, severe musculoskeletal pain, urinary calculus, or headache. Generalized additive models were used to estimate the association between opioid days' supply and a refill prescription.

RESULTS

Overall, 220,797 patients were prescribed opioid analgesics upon an outpatient visit for pain. Nearly a quarter (23.5%) of the cohort received an opioid refill prescription during follow-up. The likelihood of a refill generally increased with initial duration for most pain diagnoses. About 1 to 3 fewer patients would receive a refill within 3 months for every 100 patients initially prescribed 3 vs. 7 days of opioids for most pain diagnoses. The lowest likelihood of refill was for a 1-day supply for all pain diagnoses, except for severe musculoskeletal pain (9 days' supply) and headache (3-4 days' supply).

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term prescription opioid use increased modestly with initial opioid prescription duration for most but not all pain diagnoses examined.

Patient Motivation to Reduce or Discontinue Opioids for Chronic Pain: Self-efficacy, Barriers, and Readiness to Change

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to assess levels and predictors of self-efficacy and motivation to change opioid use among a community sample of patients using opioids for chronic pain, as well as patient-reported barriers to pursuing opioid discontinuation.

METHODS

Participants with a variety of chronic pain conditions, recruited from ResearchMatch.org , completed a battery of electronic, self-report questionnaires assessing demographic and medical characteristics, pain treatment history, and levels of readiness, self-efficacy, and other attitudes toward reducing or discontinuing opioid use. Multiple regression analyses and analyses of variance were conducted to examine predictors of readiness and self-efficacy to change opioid use. A modified version of rapid qualitative analysis was utilized to analyze themes in participant responses to an open-ended item about "what it would take" to consider opioid discontinuation.

RESULTS

The final sample included N=119 participants, the majority of whom were female (78.2%), Caucasian (77.3%), and well-educated. Readiness and self-efficacy to decrease or stop opioid use were fairly low on a 0 to 10 Visual Analog Scale (2.6 to 3.8) and significantly higher to decrease than stop ( P <0.01). Higher readiness to change was predicted by lower pain severity and higher concern about opioids, whereas higher self-efficacy was predicted by shorter pain duration. Results from the qualitative analyses revealed that the availability of an alternative treatment option was the most commonly cited requirement to consider opioid discontinuation.

DISCUSSION

Patients with lower pain severity, shorter duration of pain, and higher concerns about opioids may be a prime target from a motivation standpoint for interventions addressing opioid tapering and discontinuation.

Accounting for the interplay of interpersonal and structural trauma in the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain, opioid use disorder, and mental health in urban safety-net primary care clinics

While the epidemiological literature recognizes associations between chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP), opioid use disorder (OUD), and interpersonal trauma stemming from physical, emotional, sexual abuse or neglect, the complex etiologies and interplay between interpersonal and structural traumas in CNCP populations are underexamined. Research has documented the relationship between experiencing multiple adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and the likelihood of developing an OUD as an adult. However, the ACEs framework is criticized for failing to name the social and structural contexts that shape ACE vulnerabilities in families. Social scientific theory and ethnographic methods offer useful approaches to explore how interpersonally- and structurally-produced traumas inform the experiences of co-occurring CNCP, substance use, and mental health. We report findings from a qualitative and ethnographic longitudinal cohort study of patients with CNCP (n = 48) who received care in safety-net settings and their primary care providers (n = 23). We conducted semi-structured interviews and clinical and home-based participant observation from 2018 to 2020. Here we focus our analyses on how patients and providers explained and situated the role of patient trauma in the larger clinical context of reductions in opioid prescribing to highlight the political landscape of the United States opioid overdose crisis and its impact on clinical interactions. Findings reveal the disproportionate burden structurally-produced, racialized trauma places on CNCP, substance use and mental health symptoms that shapes patients' embodied experiences of pain and substance use, as well as their emotional experiences with their providers. Experiences of trauma impacted clinical care trajectories, yet providers and patients expressed limited options for redress. We argue for an adaptation of trauma-informed care approaches that contextualize the structural determinants of trauma and their interplay with interpersonal experiences to improve clinical care outcomes.

Shifting quality chronic pain treatment measures from processes to outcomes

OBJECTIVE

Misapplication of the 2016 Centers for Disease Control (CDC) opioid prescribing guidelines has led to overem-phasis of morphineequivalent daily dose (MEDD) as a "metric of success" in chronic noncancer pain (CNCP), resulting in unintentional harms to patients. This article reviews CNCP-related guidelines and patient preferences in order to identify pragmatic, patient-centered metrics to assess treatment response and safety in opioid-treated CNCP.

METHODS

We reviewed the clinical (CDC), research (Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials), and implementability-related guidelines (GuideLine Implementability Appraisal), along with relevant patient-identified treatment goals. From these, we summarize a guideline-concordant, patient-centered, implementable set of measures to aid the clinical management of opioid-treated CNCP.

RESULTS

We identify metrics across three domains of care: (1) treatment response metrics, which align with the CNCP care goals (pain intensity, pain interference including function and quality of life, and global impression of change); (2) risk assessment ("safety") metrics, eg, MEDD, benzodiazepine-opioid or naloxone-opioid coprescribing, and severity of mental health disorders, which evaluate the risk-benefit profile of opioid therapy; and (3) adherence ("process") metrics, which assess clinician/patient adherence to the guideline-recommended opioid therapy monitoring practices, eg, the presence of completed treatment agreement or urine toxicology testing. All metrics should be informed by implementability principles, eg, be decidable, executable, and measurable.

CONCLUSIONS

This article summarizes guideline-concordant, patient-centered, implementable metrics for assessing treatment response, safety, and adherence in opioid-treated CNCP. Regardless of which specific treatment guidelines are applied, this approach could help conceptualize and standardize the collection and reporting of CNCP-relevant metrics, compare them across health systems, and optimize care and treatment outcomes in opioid-treated CNCP.

Influence of patient trust in provider and health literacy on receipt of guideline-concordant chronic opioid therapy in HIV care settings

OBJECTIVE

Persons with HIV (PWH) frequently receive opioids for pain. Health literacy and trust in provider may impact patient-provider communication, and thus receipt of guideline-concordant opioid monitoring. We analyzed baseline data of HIV-positive patients on chronic opioid therapy (COT) in a trial to improve guideline-concordant COT in HIV clinics.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Two hospital-based safetynet HIV clinics in Boston and Atlanta.

PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS

A cohort of patients who were ≥18 years, HIV-positive, had received ≥ 3 opioid prescriptions from a study site ≥21 days apart within a 6-month period during the prior year and had ≥1 visit at the HIV clinic in the prior 18 months.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Adjusted logistic regression models examined whether health literacy and trust in provider (scale scored 11-55, higher indicates more trust) were associated with: (1) ≥ 2 urine drug tests (UDTs) and (2) presence of an opioid treatment agreement.

RESULTS

Among 166 PWH, mean trust in provider was 47.4 (SD 6.6); 117 (70 percent) had adequate health literacy. Fifty patients (30 percent) had ≥ 2 UDTs and 20 (12 percent) had a treatment agreement. The adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for a one-point increase in trust in provider was 0.97 for having ≥ 2 UDTs (95 percent CI 0.92-1.02) and 1.03 for opioid treatment agreement (95 percent CI 0.95-1.12). The aOR for adequate health literacy was 0.89 for having ≥ 2 UDTs (95 percent CI 0.42-1.88) and 1.66 for an opioid treatment agreement (95 percent CI 0.52-5.31).

CONCLUSIONS

Health literacy and trust in provider were not associated with chronic opioid therapy quality outcomes.

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.

Trends in Risk-Adjusted Initiation and Reduction of Opioid Use among Veterans With Dementia in US Department of Veterans Affairs Community Living Centers

OBJECTIVE

Proper initiation and reduction of opioids is important in providing effective and safe pain relief to Veterans with dementia, including in Community Living Centers (CLCs). We examined the trends in aggregated monthly risk-adjusted opioid administration days and dosage over 3 opioid safety regulatory periods: pre-Opioid Safety Initiative period (October 1, 2012-June 30, 2013; period 1), pre-CDC Clinical Practice Guideline period (January 1, 2014-November 30, 2015, period 2) and post-Veterans Affairs Clinical Practice Guideline period (March 1, 2017-September 30, 2018; period 3).

DESIGN

A retrospective study between October 1, 2012, and September 30, 2018.

SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS

4995 long-stay CLC residents with dementia who had incident (incident cohort, n = 2609) or continued (continued opioid cohort, n = 2386) opioid administration in CLCs.

METHODS

CLC Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments data and bar-code medication administration data were used. Opioid initiation was examined for incident opioid cohort and reduction was examined using continued opioid cohort. We first computed aggregated monthly risk-adjusted opioid administration days, opioid with benzodiazepine administration days and opioid dosage, and then examined risk-adjusted incident and continued opioid administration trends over the regulatory periods controlling for facility-level characteristics.

RESULTS

Among the incident opioid cohort, compared to period 1, there were 1.9 and 2.1 fewer risk-adjusted opioid administration days per month in periods 2 and 3, respectively; 1.5 fewer risk-adjusted days per month with opioid and benzodiazepine administration in both periods 2 and 3; and 2.2 and 3.7 morphine milligrams equivalent per day (MMED) lower risk-adjusted dosage in periods 2 and 3, respectively. Among the continued opioid cohort, compared to period 1, there were 1.6 and 2.9 fewer risk-adjusted days with opioid and benzodiazepine administration days per month in periods 2 and 3, respectively, and 5.3 MMED lower risk-adjusted dosage per month in period 3.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

CLC providers initiated and reduced opioid administration in fewer days and at lower dosage among Veterans with dementia across the regulatory periods. The result was likely due to systemic efforts from health care professionals, CLC administrators, and policy makers or VA central office, aiming to reduce opioid misuse and improve quality of care in nursing home residents with dementia. What is still unknown is whether pain was well controlled or nonpharmacologic treatments were utilized.

Association Between Opioid Dose Reduction Rates and Overdose Among Patients Prescribed Long-Term Opioid Therapy

BACKGROUND

Tapering long-term opioid therapy is an increasingly common practice, yet rapid opioid dose reductions may increase the risk of overdose. The objective of this study was to compare overdose risk following opioid dose reduction rates of ≤10%, 11% to 20%, 21% to 30%, and >30% per month to stable dosing.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study in three health systems in Colorado and Wisconsin. Participants were patients ≥18 years of age prescribed long-term opioid therapy between January 1, 2006, and June 30, 2019. Five opioid dosing patterns and drug overdoses (fatal and nonfatal) were identified using electronic health records, pharmacy records, and the National Death Index. Cox proportional hazard regression was conducted on a propensity score-weighted cohort to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for follow-up periods of 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after a dose reduction.

RESULTS

In a cohort of 17 540 patients receiving long-term opioid therapy, 42.7% of patients experienced a dose reduction. Relative to stable dosing, a dose reduction rate of >30% was associated with an increased risk of overdose and the aHR estimates decreased as the follow-up increased; the aHRs for the 1-, 6- and 12-month follow-ups were 5.33 (95% CI, 1.98-14.34), 1.81 (95% CI,1.08-3.03), and 1.49 (95% CI, 0.97-2.27), respectively. The slower tapering rates were not associated with overdose risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients receiving long-term opioid therapy exposed to dose reduction rates of >30% per month had increased overdose risk relative to patients exposed to stable dosing. Results support the use of slow dose reductions to minimize the risk of overdose.

Evidence-Based Interventions to Improve Opioid Prescribing in Primary Care: a Qualitative Assessment of Implementation in Two Studies

BACKGROUND

The TOPCARE and TEACH randomized controlled trials demonstrated the efficacy of a multi-faceted intervention to promote guideline-adherent long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) in primary care settings. Intervention components included a full-time Nurse Care Manager (NCM), an electronic registry, and academic detailing sessions.

OBJECTIVE

This study sought to identify barriers, facilitators, and other issues germane to the wider implementation of this intervention.

DESIGN

We conducted a nested, qualitative study at 4 primary care clinics (TOPCARE) and 2 HIV primary care clinics (TEACH), where the trials had been conducted.

APPROACH

We purposively sampled primary care physicians and advanced practice providers (hereafter: PCPs) who had received the intervention. Semi-structured interviews explored perceptions of the intervention to identify unanticipated barriers to and facilitators of implementation. Interview transcripts were analyzed through iterative deductive and inductive coding exercises.

KEY RESULTS

We interviewed 32 intervention participants, 30 physicians and 2 advanced practice providers, who were majority White (66%) and female (63%). Acceptability of the intervention was high, with most PCPs valuing didactic and team-based intervention elements, especially co-management of LTOT patients with the NCM. Adoption of new prescribing practices was facilitated by proximity to expertise, available behavioral health care, and the NCM's support. Most participants were enthusiastic about the intervention, though a minority voiced concerns about the appropriateness in their particular clinical environments, threats to the patient-provider relationship, or long-term sustainability.

CONCLUSION

TOPCARE/TEACH participants found the intervention generally acceptable, appropriate, and easy to adopt in a variety of primary care environments, though some challenges were identified. Careful attention to the practical challenges of implementation and the professional relationships affected by the intervention may facilitate implementation and sustainability.

"I really had somebody in my corner." Patient experiences with a pharmacist-led opioid tapering program

BACKGROUND

Opioid tapering has been identified as an effective strategy to prevent the dangers associated with long-term opioid therapy for patients with chronic pain. However, many patients are resistant to tapering, and conversations about tapering can be challenging for health care providers. Pharmacists can play a role in supporting both providers and patients with the process of opioid tapering.

OBJECTIVE

Qualitatively describe patient experiences with a unique phone-based and pharmacy-led opioid tapering program implemented within an integrated health care system.

METHODS

In-depth telephone interviews with patients who completed the program were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed. Themes were identified through a constant comparative approach.

RESULTS

We completed 25 interviews; 80% of patients were women (20), with a mean age of 58 years, and 72% (18) had been using opioids for pain management for 10 or more years. Most (60%) described a positive and satisfying experience with the tapering program. Strengths of the program reported by patients included a patient-centered and compassionate taper approach, flexible taper pace, easy access to knowledgeable pharmacist advocates, and resultant improvements in quality of life (e.g., increased energy). Challenges reported included: unhelpful or difficult-to-access nonpharmacological pain management options, negative quality of life impacts (e.g., inability to exercise), and lack of choice in the taper process. At the end of tapering, most patients (72%) described their pain as reduced or manageable rather than worse and expressed willingness to use the program in the future if a need should arise.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients in a pharmacist-led opioid tapering program appreciated the program's individualized approach to care and access to pharmacist' expertise. Most interviewed patients successfully reduced their opioid use and recommended that the program should continue as an offered service. To improve the program, patients suggested increased personalization of the taper process and additional support for withdrawal symptoms and nonpharmacological pain management.

Intended and unintended consequences: Changes in opioid prescribing practices for postsurgical, acute, and chronic pain indications following two policies in North Carolina, 2012-2018 - Controlled and single-series interrupted time series analyses

BACKGROUND

The potential misapplication of current opioid prescribing policies remains understudied and may have substantial adverse implications for patient safety.

METHODS

We used autoregressive integrated moving average models to assess level and trend changes in monthly 1) prescribing rates, 2) days' supply, and 3) daily morphine milligram equivalents (MME) of incident opioid prescriptions relative to 1) a state medical board initiative to reduce high-dose and -volume opioid prescribing and 2) legislation to limit initial opioid prescriptions for acute and postsurgical pain. We examined outcomes by pain indication overall and by cancer history, using prescribing patterns for benzodiazepines to control for temporal trends. We used large private health insurance claims data to include North Carolina residents, aged 18-64, insured at any point between January 2012 and August 2018.

RESULTS

After the medical board initiative, prescribing patterns for chronic pain patients did not change; conversely, acute and postsurgical pain patients experienced immediate declines in daily MME. Post-legislation prescription rates did not decline for those with acute, postsurgical, and non-cancer pain, but instead declined among cancer patients with chronic pain. Chronic pain patients experienced the largest days' supply declines post-legislation, instead of acute and postsurgical pain patients.

CONCLUSIONS

We found mixed evidence on the potential impact of two opioid prescribing policies, with some observed declines in a group not intended to be impacted by the policy. This study provides evidence of the need for clearer opioid prescribing policies to ensure impacts on intended populations and avoid unintended consequences.

Recent tapering from long-term opioid therapy and odds of opioid-related hospital use

PURPOSE

The number of patients tapered from long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) has increased in recent years in the United States. Some patients tapered from LTOT report improved quality of life, while others face increased risks of opioid-related hospital use. Research has not yet established how the risk of opioid-related hospital use changes across LTOT dose and subsequent tapering. Our objective was to examine associations between recent tapering from LTOT with odds of opioid-related hospital use.

METHODS

Case-crossover design using 2014-2018 health information exchange data from Indiana. We defined opioid-related hospital use as hospitalizations, and emergency department (ED) visits for a drug overdose, opioid abuse, and dependence. We defined tapering as a 15% or greater dose reduction following at least 3 months of continuous opioid therapy of 50 morphine milligram equivalents (MME)/day or more. We used conditional logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

Recent tapering from LTOT was associated with increased odds of opioid-related hospital use (OR: 1.50, 95%CI: 1.34-1.63), ED visit (OR: 1.52; 95%CI: 1.35-1.72), and inpatient hospitalization (OR: 1.40; 95%CI: 1.20-1.65). We found no evidence of heterogeneity of the effect of tapering on opioid-related hospital use by gender, age, and race. Recent tapering among patients on a high baseline dose (>300 MME) was associated with increased odds of opioid-related hospital use (OR: 2.95, 95% CI: 2.12-4.11, p < 0.001) compared to patients on a lower baseline doses.

CONCLUSIONS

Recent tapering from LTOT is associated with increased odds of opioid-related hospital use.

Lessons Learned in Implementing a Chronic Opioid Therapy Management System

OBJECTIVES

Opioid misuse has resulted in significant morbidity and mortality in the United States, and safer opioid use represents an important challenge in the primary care setting. This article describes a research collaborative of health service researchers, systems engineers, and clinicians seeking to improve processes for safer chronic opioid therapy management in an academic primary care center. We present implementation results and lessons learned along with an intervention toolkit that others may consider using within their organization.

METHODS

Using iterative improvement lifecycles and systems engineering principles, we developed a risk-based workflow model for patients on chronic opioids. Two key safe opioid use process metrics-percent of patients with recent opioid treatment agreements and urine drug tests-were identified, and processes to improve these measures were designed, tested, and implemented. Focus groups were conducted after the conclusion of implementation, with barriers and lessons learned identified via thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Initial surveys revealed a lack of knowledge regarding resources available to patients and prescribers in the primary care clinic. In addition, 18 clinicians (69%) reported largely "inheriting" (rather than initiating) their chronic opioid therapy patients. We tracked 68 patients over a 4-year period. Although process measures improved, full adherence was not achieved for the entire population. Barriers included team structure, the evolving opioid environment, and surveillance challenges, along with disruptions resulting from the 2019 novel coronavirus.

CONCLUSIONS

Safe primary care opioid prescribing requires ongoing monitoring and management in a complex environment. The application of a risk-based approach is possible but requires adaptability and redundancies to be reliable.

CDC Clinical Practice Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Pain - United States, 2022

This guideline provides recommendations for clinicians providing pain care, including those prescribing opioids, for outpatients aged ≥18 years. It updates the CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain - United States, 2016 (MMWR Recomm Rep 2016;65[No. RR-1]:1-49) and includes recommendations for managing acute (duration of <1 month), subacute (duration of 1-3 months), and chronic (duration of >3 months) pain. The recommendations do not apply to pain related to sickle cell disease or cancer or to patients receiving palliative or end-of-life care. The guideline addresses the following four areas: 1) determining whether or not to initiate opioids for pain, 2) selecting opioids and determining opioid dosages, 3) deciding duration of initial opioid prescription and conducting follow-up, and 4) assessing risk and addressing potential harms of opioid use. CDC developed the guideline using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Recommendations are based on systematic reviews of the scientific evidence and reflect considerations of benefits and harms, patient and clinician values and preferences, and resource allocation. CDC obtained input from the Board of Scientific Counselors of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (a federally chartered advisory committee), the public, and peer reviewers. CDC recommends that persons with pain receive appropriate pain treatment, with careful consideration of the benefits and risks of all treatment options in the context of the patient's circumstances. Recommendations should not be applied as inflexible standards of care across patient populations. This clinical practice guideline is intended to improve communication between clinicians and patients about the benefits and risks of pain treatments, including opioid therapy; improve the effectiveness and safety of pain treatment; mitigate pain; improve function and quality of life for patients with pain; and reduce risks associated with opioid pain therapy, including opioid use disorder, overdose, and death.

Engagement in HIV care and viral suppression following changes in long-term opioid therapy for treatment for chronic pain

Chronic pain is common among persons living with HIV and changes in opioid prescribing practices may complicate HIV care management. Using medical record data from a retrospective cohort study conducted January 1, 2012 to June 30, 2019 for 300 publicly insured HIV-positive primary care patients prescribed opioids for chronic non-cancer pain in San Francisco, we examined associations between opioid dose changes and both time to disengagement from HIV care and experiencing virologic failure using logistic regression. Discontinuation of prescribed opioids was associated with increased odds of disengagement in care at 3, 6, and 9 months after discontinuation. There were no associations with virologic failure. Providers and policy makers must weigh impacts on HIV care when implementing necessary changes in opioid prescribing.

Evidence based opioid weaning with behavioral support - Forum for Behavioral Science Edition

Nationally published guidelines state that many patients prescribed chronic opioids would benefit from gradually reducing and/or eliminating their use of these medications. This is easier said than done. Patients are often resistant or fearful, physicians are often uncomfortable prescribing an opioid taper, and patients often do not get the needed behavioral health support in this process. It is critical to develop a comprehensive behavioral and medical plan, however the field lacks practical approaches to guide physicians (and patients) through this challenge. In this manuscript our team of primary care providers and behaviorists walk through a case involving complex opioid weaning in a Family Medicine residency clinic environment. Through the lens of our patient's case, we will discuss best practices for getting patient buy-in, opioid weaning strategies, behavioral support during the wean, identifying co-morbid opioid use disorders, and deciding on acceptable end points for the taper.

Pain, Opioid Analgesics, and Cognition: A Conceptual Framework in Older Adults

Chronic pain is highly prevalent in older adults and is associated with poor functional outcomes. Furthermore, opioid analgesics are commonly utilized for the treatment of pain in older adults despite well-described adverse effects. Importantly, both chronic pain and opioid analgesics have been linked with impairments in cognitive function, though data are limited. In this manuscript we summarize the evidence and critical knowledge gaps regarding the relationships between pain, opioid analgesics, and cognition in older adults. Furthermore, we provide a conceptual framework to guide future research in the development, implementation, and evaluation of strategies to optimize analgesic outcomes in older adults while minimizing deleterious effects on cognition.

Shifting interpretations in evidence and guidance in pain and opioids research: A bibliometric analysis of a highly cited case series from 1986

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Portenoy and Foley's 1986 landmark case series 'Chronic use of opioid analgesics in non-malignant pain: report of 38 cases' has been reproached for opening the floodgates of opioid prescribing for chronic non-cancer pain and the attendant harms. This influential article has been cited over 500 times in the scientific literature over the last four decades. This study seeks to understand the impact of Portenoy and Foley's article on subsequent discussions and research about opioids.

METHODS

We conducted a multi-method bibliometric analysis of all citations of this article from 1986 through 2019 using quantitative relational and qualitative content analysis to determine how uses and interpretations of this case series and associated prescribing guidance have changed over time, in relationship to the evolution of the North American opioid crises.

RESULTS

Using time series analysis, we identified three periods with distinct interpretations and uses of the index article. In the first 'exploration' period (1986-1996), the index article was well-received by the scientific community and motivated further study of the effects of opioids. In the second 'implementation' period (1997-2003, coinciding with the release of OxyContin®), this case series was used as evidence to support widespread prescribing of opioid analgesics, even while it was recognized that long-term effects had not yet been evaluated. The third 'reassessment' period (2004-2019) focused on how opioid-related harms had been overlooked, and in many cases, these harms were directly attributed to this article.

CONCLUSION

These changes in interpretation demonstrate shifting currents of the use and mobilization of evidence regarding pain and opioids, and how these currents both impact and are impacted by clinical practices and major sociohistorical phenomena such as the opioid crisis. Researchers and clinicians must account for these shifting dynamics when developing and interpreting scientific knowledge, including in the form of clinical practice guidelines.

Study protocol for a type III hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial to evaluate scaling interoperable clinical decision support for patient-centered chronic pain management in primary care

Background

The US continues to face public health crises related to both chronic pain and opioid overdoses. Thirty percent of Americans suffer from chronic noncancer pain at an estimated yearly cost of over $600 billion. Most patients with chronic pain turn to primary care clinicians who must choose from myriad treatment options based on relative risks and benefits, patient history, available resources, symptoms, and goals. Recently, with attention to opioid-related risks, prescribing has declined. However, clinical experts have countered with concerns that some patients for whom opioid-related benefits outweigh risks may be inappropriately discontinued from opioids. Unfortunately, primary care clinicians lack usable tools to help them partner with their patients in choosing pain treatment options that best balance risks and benefits in the context of patient history, resources, symptoms, and goals. Thus, primary care clinicians and patients would benefit from patient-centered clinical decision support (CDS) for this shared decision-making process.

Methods

The objective of this 3-year project is to study the adaptation and implementation of an existing interoperable CDS tool for pain treatment shared decision making, with tailored implementation support, in new clinical settings in the OneFlorida Clinical Research Consortium. Our central hypothesis is that tailored implementation support will increase CDS adoption and shared decision making. We further hypothesize that increases in shared decision making will lead to improved patient outcomes, specifically pain and physical function. The CDS implementation will be guided by the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework. The evaluation will be organized by the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. We will adapt and tailor PainManager, an open source interoperable CDS tool, for implementation in primary care clinics affiliated with the OneFlorida Clinical Research Consortium. We will evaluate the effect of tailored implementation support on PainManager’s adoption for pain treatment shared decision making. This evaluation will establish the feasibility and obtain preliminary data in preparation for a multi-site pragmatic trial targeting the effectiveness of PainManager and tailored implementation support on shared decision making and patient-reported pain and physical function.

Discussion

This research will generate evidence on strategies for implementing interoperable CDS in new clinical settings across different types of electronic health records (EHRs). The study will also inform tailored implementation strategies to be further tested in a subsequent hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial. Together, these efforts will lead to important new technology and evidence that patients, clinicians, and health systems can use to improve care for millions of Americans who suffer from pain and other chronic conditions.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05256394, Registered 25 February 2022.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13012-022-01217-4.

Benefit-risk assessment and reporting in clinical trials of chronic pain treatments: IMMPACT recommendations

ABSTRACT

Chronic pain clinical trials have historically assessed benefit and risk outcomes separately. However, a growing body of research suggests that a composite metric that accounts for benefit and risk in relation to each other can provide valuable insights into the effects of different treatments. Researchers and regulators have developed a variety of benefit-risk composite metrics, although the extent to which these methods apply to randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of chronic pain has not been evaluated in the published literature. This article was motivated by an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials consensus meeting and is based on the expert opinion of those who attended. In addition, a review of the benefit-risk assessment tools used in published chronic pain RCTs or highlighted by key professional organizations (ie, Cochrane, European Medicines Agency, Outcome Measures in Rheumatology, and U.S. Food and Drug Administration) was completed. Overall, the review found that benefit-risk metrics are not commonly used in RCTs of chronic pain despite the availability of published methods. A primary recommendation is that composite metrics of benefit-risk should be combined at the level of the individual patient, when possible, in addition to the benefit-risk assessment at the treatment group level. Both levels of analysis (individual and group) can provide valuable insights into the relationship between benefits and risks associated with specific treatments across different patient subpopulations. The systematic assessment of benefit-risk in clinical trials has the potential to enhance the clinical meaningfulness of RCT results.

Opioid Prescribing Patterns for Acute Pain

PURPOSE

The current study aimed to identify patients presenting with acute pain who may be at risk for a complicated trajectory, via identifying clusters of early opioid prescribing patterns.

METHODS

National Veterans Affairs administrative data were utilized to build a cohort of outpatients with acute pain presentations and no more than minimal opioid use in the prior year. Latent Class Analyses (LCA) identified clusters of early opioid prescribing patterns. Risk of progression to long-term opioid use was contrasted between LCA clusters using log-binomial regression, adjusting for confounding variables.

RESULTS

The 2018 cohort included N = 191,283. Among the 27,890 who received an initial opioid prescription, LCA classes were identified using: first supply day, total days dispensed across 30 days, opioid type, dose, and number of prescriptions across the first 30 days. In the three-class model: class 1 indicated an immediate, low-dose, brief supply; class 2 included delayed, low-dose and longer duration prescriptions; and class 3 included delayed high-dose, and moderate duration. Adjusted relative risk ratios for progression to long-term opioid use in the following year were 3.33 (95% CI: 2.71-4.10) for class 1 (absolute risk 1.1%); 7.76 (95% CI: 6.69-8.99) for class 2 (3.1%); and 6.81 (95% CI: 5.72 - 8.12) for class 3 (2.4%); compared to patients who did not receive an acute opioid prescription (0.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

These clusters of acute opioid prescribing could facilitate identification of patients who may benefit from enhanced pain care earlier in the pain trajectory and decrease future reliance on long-term opioid therapy.

Exploring perspectives on changing opioid prescribing practices: A qualitative study of community stakeholders in the HEALing Communities Study

BACKGROUND

Community-based perspectives are needed to more broadly inform policy-makers, public health practitioners, prescribers, and pharmacists about community-led and broader efforts to reduce opioid overprescribing, and ultimately reduce prescription opioid use disorder, overdoses and fatalities. The aim of this study is to explore community-based perspectives on efforts to change opioid prescribing practices in their communities.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 388 community stakeholders across four states (Kentucky, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio) from November 2019 to January 2020 about community approaches and goals of community-led responses to the opioid crisis. Data analysis combined deductive and inductive approaches to identify themes and sub-themes related to improving opioid prescribing practices.

RESULTS

Three major themes and different subthemes were characterized: (1) acknowledging progress (i.e., healthcare providers being part of the solution, provider education, and prescription drug monitoring programs); (2) emergent challenges (i.e., physician nonadherence with safer opioid prescribing guidelines, difficulty identifying appropriate use of opioids, and concerns about accelerating the progression from opioid misuse to drug abuse); and (3) opportunities for change (i.e., educating patients about safer use and proper disposal of opioids, expanding prescriber and pharmacist education, changing unrealistic expectations around eliminating pain, expanding and increasing insurance coverage for alternative treatment options).

CONCLUSIONS

Community stakeholders appeared to support specific opportunities to reduce prescription opioid misuse and improve safer prescribing. The opportunities included culture change around pain expectations, awareness of safe disposal, additional provider education, and increased coverage and acceptability of non-opioid treatments.

Associations of opioid prescription dose and discontinuation with risk of substance-related morbidity in long-term opioid therapy

ABSTRACT

Efforts to reduce opioid-related harms have decreased opioid prescription but have provoked concerns about unintended consequences, particularly for long-term opioid therapy (LtOT) recipients. Research is needed to address the knowledge gap regarding how risk of substance-related morbidity changes across LtOT and its discontinuation. This study used nationwide commercial insurance claims data and a within-individual design to examine associations of LtOT dose and discontinuation with substance-related morbidity. We identified 194,839 adolescents and adults who initiated opioid prescription in 2010 to 2018 and subsequently received LtOT. The cohort was followed for a median of 965 days (interquartile range, 525-1550), of which a median of 176 days (119-332) were covered by opioid prescription. During follow-up, there were 17,582 acute substance-related morbidity events, defined as claims for emergency visits, inpatient hospitalizations, and ambulance transportation with substance use disorder or overdose diagnoses. Relative to initial treatment, risk was greater within individual during subsequent periods of >60 to 120 (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.29; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.49) and >120 (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.24-1.76) daily morphine milligram equivalents. Risk was also greater during days 1 to 30 after discontinuations than during initial treatment (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.05-1.35). However, it was no greater than during the 30 days before discontinuations, indicating that the risk may not be wholly attributable to discontinuation itself. Results were supported by a negative control pharmacotherapy analysis and additional sensitivity analyses. They suggest that LtOT recipients may experience increased substance-related morbidity risk during treatment subsequent to initial opioid prescription, particularly in periods involving higher doses.

A Survey on Opioid Tapering Practices, Policies, and Perspectives by Pain and Palliative Care Pharmacists

Opioid tapering is an essential clinical tool to utilize for a variety of reasons, including safety and analgesic optimization. The need for individualized regimens reveals a corresponding need for healthcare providers who can actively manage patients throughout the process. Pharmacists have taken on an integral role for achieving success in opioid tapering. This survey was conducted to describe the current opioid tapering practices of pain and palliative care pharmacists. A Qualtrics survey was offered to the Society of Pain and Palliative Care Pharmacist members. The majority (87%) indicated they specialized in pain management. Almost all respondents (98%) reported providing tapering recommendations and 82% reported being involved with patient monitoring throughout the taper. The majority (multiple responses could be chosen) noted that the indication for initiating an opioid taper was due to abuse/misuse (91%), reduced overall efficacy (89%), and adverse drug reactions (78%). The most common follow-up intervals during tapering were weekly (15%), every 2 weeks (22%), and every 4 weeks (44%). This practice-based survey, though small, showed that pharmacists in pain management and palliative care are actively involved in opioid tapering. This survey will hopefully serve as a foundation for continuing research into opioid tapering and the pharmacist's role therein.

Abrupt Discontinuation From Long-Term Opioid Therapy in Massachusetts, 2015-2018

INTRODUCTION

In response to the opioid overdose crisis, providers were urged to taper and discontinue patients from long-term opioid therapy; however, abrupt discontinuation may lead to poor health outcomes. This study aims to determine abrupt and tapered discontinuation rates and identify the patient and provider characteristics associated with abrupt discontinuation.

METHODS

Data were from the Massachusetts Prescription Monitoring Program, 2015-2018. Patients discontinued from long-term opioid therapy were included in the analysis. Differences between abrupt and tapered discontinuations were identified with bivariate correlations, and variables independently associated with abrupt discontinuation were identified using multivariable Poisson regression analyses. Data were analyzed during 2019-2021.

RESULTS

In total, 277,485 patients experienced 359,320 discontinuations, of which 33.7% (n=120,964) were abrupt. Of all discontinuations, 55.7% were among female patients, and 57.9% were among patients aged >55 years. The ratio of abrupt to tapered discontinuations increased from 1:2.11 in 2015 to 1:1.75 in 2018. In bivariate analysis, prescribers with more patients receiving monthly opioid prescriptions were less likely to abruptly discontinue patients (29.0, IQR=13.9, 55.3 vs 18.8, IQR=5.84, 43.9, p<0.001), as were prescribers who wrote more monthly opioid prescriptions (36.0, IQR=16.8, 70.8 vs 25.4, IQR=7.40, 58.3, p<0.001). Multivariable results indicated that abrupt discontinuation was independently associated with male sex (RR=1.31, 95% CI=1.29, 1.1.32), younger age (RR=0.872, 95% CI=0.869, 0.874), greater distance between patient and prescriber (RR=1.0075, 95% CI=1.0072, 1.0078), and longer long-term opioid therapy duration (RR=1.021, 95% CI=1.021, 1.0122 for every month increase).

CONCLUSIONS

Among all long-term opioid therapy discontinuations, abrupt discontinuation is increasing. Evidence-based approaches to managing and tapering long-term opioid therapy are urgently needed.

Trajectories of prescription opioid dose and risk of opioid-related adverse events among older Medicare beneficiaries in the United States: A nested case-control study

BACKGROUND

Despite the rising number of older adults with medical encounters for opioid misuse, dependence, and poisoning, little is known about patterns of prescription opioid dose and their association with risk for opioid-related adverse events (ORAEs) in older patients. The study aims to compare trajectories of prescribed opioid doses in 6 months preceding an incident ORAE for cases and a matched control group of older patients with chronic noncancer pain (CNCP).

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We conducted a nested case-control study within a cohort of older (≥65 years) patients diagnosed with CNCP who were new users of prescription opioids, assembled using a 5% national random sample of Medicare beneficiaries from 2011 to 2018. From the cohort with a mean follow-up of 2.3 years, we identified 3,103 incident ORAE cases with ≥1 opioid prescription in 6 months preceding the event, and 3,103 controls matched on sex, age, and time since opioid initiation. Key exposure was trajectories of prescribed opioid morphine milligram equivalent (MME) daily dosage over 6 months before the incident ORAE or matched controls. Among the cases and controls, 2,192 (70.6%) were women, and the mean (SD) age was 77.1 (7.1) years. Four prescribed opioid trajectories before the incident ORAE diagnosis or matched date emerged: gradual dose discontinuation (from ≤3 to 0 daily MME, 1,456 [23.5%]), gradual dose increase (from 0 to >3 daily MME, 1,878 [30.3%]), consistent low dose (between 3 and 5 daily MME, 1,510 [24.3%]), and consistent moderate dose (>20 daily MME, 1,362 [22.0%]). Few older patients (<5%) were prescribed a mean daily dose of ≥90 daily MME during 6 months before diagnosis or matched date. Patients with gradual dose discontinuation versus those with a consistent low dose, moderate dose, and increase dose were more likely to be younger (65 to 74 years), Midwest US residents, and receiving no low-income subsidy. Compared to patients with gradual dose discontinuation, those with gradual dose increase (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 3.4; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.8 to 4.0; P < 0.001), consistent low dose (aOR = 3.8; 95% CI 3.2 to 4.6; P < 0.001), and consistent moderate dose (aOR = 8.5; 95% CI 6.8 to 10.7; P < 0.001) had a higher risk of ORAE, after adjustment for covariates. Our main findings remained robust in the sensitivity analysis using a cohort study with inverse probability of treatment weighting analyses. Major limitations include the limited generalizability of the study findings and lack of information on illicit opioid use, which prevents understanding the clinical dose threshold level that increases the risk of ORAE in older adults.

CONCLUSIONS

In this sample of older patients who are Medicare beneficiaries, 4 prescription opioid dose trajectories were identified, with most prescribed doses below 90 daily MME within 6 months before ORAE or matched date. An increased risk for ORAE was observed among older patients with a gradual increase in dose or among those with a consistent low-to-moderate dose of prescribed opioids when compared to patients with opioid dose discontinuation. Whether older patients are susceptible to low opioid doses warrants further investigations.

Framework for opioid stigma in cancer pain

ABSTRACT

Millions of patients with cancer pain are treated with prescription opioids each year. However, efforts to mitigate the ongoing opioid crisis result in unintended consequences with opioid pain management, including opioid stigma. Emerging research indicates that opioid stigma is problematic in patients with cancer, but few studies have examined contributors to and impacts of opioid stigma in this population. To guide future research in this area, we propose a conceptual framework-the opioid stigma framework (OSF)-with which to understand and improve opioid stigma in patients with cancer pain. Development of the OSF was guided by a literature review of stigma in health-related conditions, adaptation of the existing Health Stigma and Discrimination Framework, a topical review of challenges related to opioid cancer pain management, and author expertise in cancer, pain, and opioid prescribing. The proposed OSF highlights 5 domains: (1) contributors to opioid stigma, or factors that increase the likelihood that a patient will experience opioid stigma; (2) intersecting stigmas, or the convergence of multiple stigmatized identities within a patient; (3) stigma manifestations, or the ways opioid stigma is manifested in patients, clinicians, and the community; (4) proximal outcomes, or the immediate consequences of opioid stigma in patients; and (5) long-term impacts in patients. The OSF provides 2 main avenues to facilitate future research: (1) providing a framework to explore the mechanisms that underlie opioid stigma and its impact on cancer pain management and (2) supporting the development of targeted, tailored interventions to eliminate opioid stigma.

Temporal Trends and Predictors of Opioid Use Among Older Patients With Cancer

OBJECTIVES

While opioids represent a cornerstone of cancer pain management, the timing and patterns of opioid use in the cancer population have not been well studied. This study sought to explore longitudinal trends in opioid use among Medicare beneficiaries with nonmetastatic cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Within a cohort of 16,072 Medicare beneficiaries ≥66 years old diagnosed with nonmetastatic cancer between 2007 and 2013, we determined the likelihood of receiving a short-term (0 to 6 mo postdiagnosis), intermediate-term (6 to 12 mo postdiagnosis), long-term (1 to 2 y postdiagnosis), and high-risk (morphine equivalent dose ≥90 mg/day) opioid prescription after cancer diagnosis. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify patient and cancer risk factors associated with these opioid use endpoints.

RESULTS

During the study period, 74.6% of patients received an opioid prescription, while only 2.66% of patients received a high-risk prescription. Factors associated with use varied somewhat between short-term, intermediate-term, and long-term use, though in general, patients at higher risk of receiving an opioid prescription after their cancer diagnosis were younger, had higher stage disease, lived in regions of higher poverty, and had a history of prior opioid use. Prescriptions for high-risk opioids were associated with individuals living in regions with lower poverty.

CONCLUSIONS

Temporal trends in opioid use in cancer patients depend on patient, demographic, and tumor characteristics. Overall, understanding these correlations may help physicians better identify patient-specific risks of opioid use and could help better inform future evidence-based, cancer-specific opioid prescription guidelines.

The protocol of the Application of Economics & Social psychology to improve Opioid Prescribing Safety trial 2 (AESOPS-2): Availability of opioid harm

BACKGROUND

High levels of opioid prescribing in the United States has resulted in an alarming trend in opioid-related harms. The objective of Trial 2 of the Application of Economics & Social psychology to improve Opioid Prescribing Safety (AESOPS-2) is to dampen the intensity and frequency of opioid prescribing in accordance with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendation to "go low and slow". We aim to accomplish this by notifying clinicians of harmful patient outcomes, which we expect to increase the mental availability of risks associated with opioid use.

METHODS

The trial is multi-site. Random assignment determines if prescribers to persons who suffer an opioid overdose (fatal or nonfatal) learn of this event (intervention) or practice usual care (control). Clinicians in the intervention group receive a letter notifying them of their patient's overdose. The primary outcome is the change in clinician weekly milligram morphine equivalent (MME) prescribed in a 6-month period before and after receiving the letter. Additional outcomes are the change in the proportion of patients prescribed at least 50 daily MME and in the proportion of patients referred to medication assisted treatment. Group differences in these outcomes will be compared using an intent-to-treat difference-in-differences framework with a mixed-effects regression model to estimate clinician MME.

DISCUSSION

The AESOPS-2 trial will provide new knowledge about whether increasing prescribers' awareness of patients' opioid-related overdoses leads to a reduction in opioid prescribing. Additionally, this trial may better inform how to reduce opioid use disorder and opioid overdoses by lowering population exposure to these drugs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04758637.

Opioids and Public Health: The Prescription Opioid Ecosystem and Need for Improved Management

While U.S. opioid prescribing has decreased 38% in the past decade, opioid deaths have increased 300%. This opioid paradox is poorly recognized. Current approaches to opioid management are not working, and new approaches are needed. This article reviews the outcomes and shortcomings of recent U.S. opioid policies and strategies that focus primarily or exclusively on reducing or eliminating opioid prescribing. It introduces concepts of a prescription opioid ecosystem and opioid pool, and it discusses how the pool can be influenced by supply-side, demand-side, and opioid returns factors. It illuminates pressing policy needs for an opioid ecosystem that enables proper opioid stewardship, identifies associated responsibilities, and emphasizes the necessity of making opioid returns as easy and common as opioid prescribing, in order to minimize the size of the opioid pool available for potential diversion, misuse, overdose, and death. Approaches are applicable to opioid prescribing in general, and to opioid prescribing after surgery.

Patient outcomes after opioid dose reduction among patients with chronic opioid therapy

ABSTRACT

The net effects of prescribing initiatives that encourage dose reductions are uncertain. We examined whether rapid dose reduction after high-dose chronic opioid therapy (COT) associates with suicide, overdose, or other opioid-related adverse events. This retrospective cohort study included Oregon Medicaid recipients with high-dose COT. Claims were linked with prescription data from the prescription drug monitoring program and death data from vital statistics, 2014 to 2017. Participants were placed into 4 mutually exclusive dose trajectory groups after the high-dose COT period, and Cox proportional hazard models were used to examine the effect of dose changes on patient outcomes in the following year. Of the 14,596 high-dose COT patients, 4191 (28.7%) abruptly discontinued opioid prescriptions, 1648 (11.3%) reduced opioid dose before discontinuing, 6480 (44.4%) had a dose reduction but never discontinued, and 2277 (15.6%) had a stable or increasing dose. Discontinuation, whether abrupt (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 3.63; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.42-9.25) or with dose reduction (aHR 4.47, 95% CI 1.68-11.88) significantly increased risk of suicide compared with those with stable or increasing dose. By contrast, discontinuation or dose reduction reduced the risk of overdose compared with those with a stable or increasing dose (aHR 0.36-0.62, 95% CI 0.20-0.94). Patients with an abrupt discontinuation were more likely to overdose on heroin (vs. prescription opioids) than patients in other groups (P < 0.0001). Our study suggests that patients on COT require careful risk assessment and supportive interventions when considering opioid discontinuation or continuation at a high dose.

Pain Management and Risks Associated With Substance Use: Practice Recommendations

Assessing and managing pain while evaluating risks associated with substance use and substance use disorders continues to be a challenge faced by health care clinicians. The American Society for Pain Management Nursing and the International Nurses Society on Addictions uphold the principle that all persons with co-occurring pain and substance use or substance use disorders have the right to be treated with dignity and respect, and receive evidence-based, high quality assessment, and management for both conditions. The American Society for Pain Management Nursing and International Nurses Society on Addictions have updated their 2012 position statement on this topic supporting an integrated, holistic, multidimensional approach, which includes nonopioid and nonpharmacological modalities. Opioid use disorder is used as an exemplar for substance use disorders and clinical recommendations are included with expanded attention to risk assessment and mitigation with interventions targeted to minimize the risk for relapse or escalation of substance use. Opioids should not be excluded for anyone when indicated for pain management. A team-based approach is critical, promotes the active involvement of the person with pain and their support systems, and includes pain and addiction specialists whenever possible. Health care systems should establish policies and procedures that facilitate and support the principles and recommendations put forth in this article.

Evaluating the 0–10 Point Pain Scale on Adolescent Opioid Use in US Emergency Departments

Objective: To evaluate trends in national emergency department (ED) adolescent opioid use in relation to reported pain scores. Methods: A retrospective, cross-sectional analysis on National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) data was conducted on ED visits involving patients aged 11–21 from 2008–2017. Crude observational counts were extrapolated to weighted estimates matching total population counts. Multivariate models were used to evaluate the role of a pain score in the reported use of opioids. Anchors for pain scores were 0 (no pain) and 10 (worst pain imaginable). Results: 31,355 observations were captured, which were extrapolated by the NHAMCS to represent 162,515,943 visits nationwide. Overall, patients with a score of 10 were 1.35 times more likely to receive an opioid than patients scoring a 9, 41.7% (CI95 39.7–43.8%) and 31.0% (CI95 28.8–33.3%), respectively. Opioid use was significantly different between traditional pain score cutoffs of mild (1–3) and moderate pain (4–6), where scores of 4 were 1.76 times more likely to receive an opioid than scores of 3, 15.5% (CI95 13.7–17.3%) and 8.8% (CI95 7.1–10.6%), respectively. Scores of 7 were 1.33 times more likely to receive opioids than scores of 6, 24.7% (CI95 23.0–26.3%) and 18.5% (CI95 16.9–20.0%), respectively. Fractures had the highest likelihood of receiving an opioid, as 49.2% of adolescents with a fracture received an opioid (CI95 46.4–51.9%). Within this subgroup, only adolescents reporting a fracture pain score of 10 had significantly higher opioid use than adjacent pain scores, where fracture patients scoring a 10 were 1.4 times more likely to use opioids than those scoring 9, 82.2% (CI95 76.1–88.4%) and 59.8% (CI95 49.0–70.5%), respectively. Conclusions: While some guidelines in the adult population have revised cut-offs and groupings of the traditional tiers on a 0–10 point pain scale, the adolescent population may also require further examination to potentially warrant a similar adjustment.

Using Prescription Drug Monitoring Program Data to Assess Likelihood of Incident Long-Term Opioid Use: a Statewide Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Limiting the incidence of opioid-naïve patients who transition to long-term opioid use (i.e., continual use for > 90 days) is a key strategy for reducing opioid-related harms.

OBJECTIVE

To identify variables constructed from data routinely collected by prescription drug monitoring programs that are associated with opioid-naïve patients' likelihood of transitioning to long-term use after an initial opioid prescription.

DESIGN

Statewide cohort study using prescription drug monitoring program data PARTICIPANTS: All opioid-naïve patients in California (no opioid prescriptions within the prior 2 years) age ≥ 12 years prescribed an initial oral opioid analgesic from 2010 to 2017.

METHODS AND MAIN MEASURES

Multiple logistic regression models using variables constructed from prescription drug monitoring program data through the day of each patient's initial opioid prescription, and, alternatively, data available up to 30 and 60 days after the initial prescription were constructed to identify probability of transition to long-term use. Model fit was determined by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (C-statistic).

KEY RESULTS

Among 30,569,125 episodes of patients receiving new opioid prescriptions, 1,809,750 (5.9%) resulted in long-term use. Variables with the highest adjusted odds ratios included concurrent benzodiazepine use, ≥ 2 unique prescribers, and receipt of non-pill, non-liquid formulations. C-statistics for the day 0, day 30, and day 60 models were 0.81, 0.88, and 0.94, respectively. Models assessing opioid dose using the number of pills prescribed had greater discriminative capacity than those using milligram morphine equivalents.

CONCLUSIONS

Data routinely collected by prescription drug monitoring programs can be used to identify patients who are likely to develop long-term use. Guidelines for new opioid prescriptions based on pill counts may be simpler and more clinically useful than guidelines based on days' supply or milligram morphine equivalents.

CDC Guideline For Opioid Prescribing Associated With Reduced Dispensing To Certain Patients With Chronic Pain

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's 2016 Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain aimed to reduce unsafe opioid prescribing. It is unknown whether the guideline influenced prescribing in the target population: patients with chronic, noncancer pain, who may be at particular risk for opioid-related harms. To study this question, we used 2014-18 data from a commercial claims database to examine associations between the release of the guideline and opioid dispensing in a national cohort of more than 450,000 patients with four common chronic pain diagnoses. We also examined whether any reductions associated with the guideline were larger for diagnoses for which there existed stronger expert consensus against opioid prescribing. Overall, the guideline was associated with substantial reductions in dispensing opioids, including a reduction in patients' rate of receiving at least one opioid prescription by approximately 20 percentage points by December 2018 compared with the counterfactual, no-guideline scenario. However, the reductions in dispensing did not vary by the strength of expert consensus against opioid prescribing. These findings suggest that although voluntary guidelines can drive changes in prescribing, questions remain about how clinicians are tailoring opioid reductions to best benefit patients.