Successful use of buprenorphine-naloxone medication-assisted program to treat concurrent pain and opioid addiction after cancer therapy

Efficacy of transdermal buprenorphine patch for managing withdrawal symptoms in patients with cancer physically dependent on prescription opioids

BACKGROUND

The physical dependence on prescription opioids among cancer survivors remains an under-investigated area, with a scarcity of well-designed prospective studies.

METHODS

This single-arm, phase-2 clinical trial in Korea assessed the efficacy and safety of a transdermal buprenorphine patch (TBP) in managing physical dependence on prescription opioids in cancer survivors, as confirmed through the DSM-5 criteria or psychiatric consultation for opioid withdrawal. This study involved a 4-phase treatment protocol of screening, induction/stabilization, discontinuation, and monitoring. The primary outcome was the rate of successful opioid discontinuation, as measured by a negative urine-drug screening at 8 weeks. Key secondary outcomes included the resumption of prescribed opioids, changes in both the Clinical Opioid Withdrawal Scale (COWS) and morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD), and assessments related to the psychological and physiological aspects of dependence and safety.

RESULTS

Thirty-one participants were enrolled. In the intention-to-treat population, the success rate of opioid discontinuation was 58%, with only 2 participants experiencing a resumption of prescribed opioids. Significant reductions were observed in MEDD, which decreased from 98 to 26 mg/day (P < .001), and COWS scores, which decreased from 5.5 to 2.8 (P < .001). Desire to use opioids reduced from 7.0 to 3.0 on a 10-point numeric rating scale (P < .001). Toxicities related to TBP were mild and manageable, without severe precipitated withdrawal symptoms.

CONCLUSION

TBP may be considered as an alternative therapeutic option in cancer survivors physically dependent on prescription opioids, especially where sublingual formulations are unavailable.

Consensus-Based Guidance on Opioid Management in Individuals With Advanced Cancer-Related Pain and Opioid Misuse or Use Disorder

Importance

Opioid misuse and opioid use disorder (OUD) are important comorbidities in people with advanced cancer and cancer-related pain, but there is a lack of consensus on treatment.

Objective

To develop consensus among palliative care and addiction specialists on the appropriateness of various opioid management strategies in individuals with advanced cancer-related pain and opioid misuse or OUD.

Design, Setting, and Participants

For this qualitative study, using ExpertLens, an online platform and methodology for conducting modified Delphi panels, between August and October 2020, we conducted 2 modified Delphi panels to understand the perspectives of palliative and addiction clinicians on 3 common clinical scenarios varying by prognosis (weeks to months vs months to years). Of the 129 invited palliative or addiction medicine specialists, 120 participated in at least 1 round. A total of 84 participated in all 3 rounds.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Consensus was investigated for 3 clinical scenarios: (1) a patient with a history of an untreated opioid use disorder, (2) a patient taking more opioid than prescribed, and (3) a patient using nonprescribed benzodiazepines.

Results

Participants were mostly women (47 [62%]), White (94 (78 [65%]), and held MD/DO degrees (115 [96%]). For a patient with untreated OUD, regardless of prognosis, it was deemed appropriate to begin treatment with buprenorphine/naloxone and inappropriate to refer to a methadone clinic. Beginning split-dose methadone was deemed appropriate for patients with shorter prognoses and of uncertain appropriateness for those with longer prognoses. Beginning a full opioid agonist was deemed of uncertain appropriateness for those with a short prognosis and inappropriate for those with a longer prognosis. Regardless of prognosis, for a patient with no medical history of OUD taking more opioids than prescribed, it was deemed appropriate to increase monitoring, inappropriate to taper opioids, and of uncertain appropriateness to increase the patient's opioids or transition to buprenorphine/naloxone. For a patient with a urine drug test positive for non-prescribed benzodiazepines, regardless of prognosis, it was deemed appropriate to increase monitoring, inappropriate to taper opioids and prescribe buprenorphine/naloxone.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this qualitative study provide urgently needed consensus-based guidance for clinicians and highlight critical research and policy gaps.

Endogenous opiates and behavior: 2020

This paper is the forty-third consecutive installment of the annual anthological review of research concerning the endogenous opioid system, summarizing articles published during 2020 that studied the behavioral effects of molecular, pharmacological and genetic manipulation of opioid peptides and receptors as well as effects of opioid/opiate agonists and antagonists. The review is subdivided into the following specific topics: molecular-biochemical effects and neurochemical localization studies of endogenous opioids and their receptors (1), the roles of these opioid peptides and receptors in pain and analgesia in animals (2) and humans (3), opioid-sensitive and opioid-insensitive effects of nonopioid analgesics (4), opioid peptide and receptor involvement in tolerance and dependence (5), stress and social status (6), learning and memory (7), eating and drinking (8), drug abuse and alcohol (9), sexual activity and hormones, pregnancy, development and endocrinology (10), mental illness and mood (11), seizures and neurologic disorders (12), electrical-related activity and neurophysiology (13), general activity and locomotion (14), gastrointestinal, renal and hepatic functions (15), cardiovascular responses (16), respiration and thermoregulation (17), and immunological responses (18).

Opioid Therapy in Cancer Patients and Survivors at Risk of Addiction, Misuse or Complex Dependency

A clinical conundrum can occur when a patient with active opioid use disorder (OUD) or at elevated risk for the condition presents with cancer and related painful symptoms. Despite earlier beliefs that cancer patients were relatively unaffected by opioid misuse, it appears that cancer patients have similar risks as the general population for OUD but are more likely to need and take opioids. Treating such patients requires an individualized approach, informed consent, and a shared decision-making model. Tools exist to help stratify patients for risk of OUD. While improved clinician education in pain control is needed, patients too need to be better informed about the risks and benefits of opioids. Patients may fear pain more than OUD, but opioids are not always the most effective pain reliever for a given patient and some patients do not tolerate or want to take opioids. The association of OUD with mental health disorders (dual diagnosis) can also complicate delivery of care as patients with mental health issues may be less adherent to treatment and may use opioids for “chemical coping” as much as for pain control.

Mental Health and Chemical Dependency Services at US Cancer Centers

BACKGROUND

It is standard of care and an accreditation requirement to screen for and address distress and psychosocial needs in patients with cancer. This study assessed the availability of mental health (MH) and chemical dependency (CD) services at US cancer centers.

METHODS

The 2017-2018 American Hospital Association (AHA) survey, Area Health Resource File, and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Hospital Compare databases were used to assess availability of services and associations with hospital-level and health services area (HSA)-level characteristics.

RESULTS

Of 1,144 cancer centers surveyed, 85.4% offered MH services and 45.5% offered CD services; only 44.1% provided both. Factors associated with increased adjusted odds of offering MH services were teaching status (odds ratio [OR], 1.76; 95% CI, 1.18-2.62), being a member of a hospital system (OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.31-3.07), and having more beds (OR, 1.04 per 10-bed increase; 95% CI, 1.02-1.05). Higher population estimate (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99), higher percentage uninsured (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.86-0.95), and higher Mental Health Professional Shortage Area level in the HSA (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.98-1.00) were associated with decreased odds of offering MH services. Government-run (OR, 2.85; 95% CI, 1.30-6.22) and nonprofit centers (OR, 3.48; 95% CI, 1.78-6.79) showed increased odds of offering CD services compared with for-profit centers. Those that were members of hospital systems (OR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.14-2.29) and had more beds (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.03) also showed increased odds of offering these services. A higher percentage of uninsured patients in the HSA (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.88-0.97) was associated with decreased odds of offering CD services.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients' ability to pay, membership in a hospital system, and organization size may be drivers of decisions to co-locate services within cancer centers. Larger organizations may be better able to financially support offering these services despite poor reimbursement rates. Innovations in specialty payment models highlight opportunities to drive transformation in delivering MH and CD services for high-need patients with cancer.