Dataset Information

Managing Concerning Behaviors in Patients Prescribed Opioids for Chronic Pain: A Delphi Study.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Current guideline-recommended monitoring of patients prescribed long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) for chronic pain will likely result in increased identification of behaviors of concern for misuse and addiction, but there is a dearth of empiric evidence about how these behaviors should be managed. OBJECTIVE:To establish expert consensus about treatment approaches for common and challenging concerning behaviors that arise among patients on LTOT. DESIGN:We used a Delphi approach, which allows for generation of consensus. PARTICIPANTS:Participants were clinical experts in chronic pain and opioid prescribing recruited from professional societies and other expert groups. MAIN MEASURES:The Delphi process was conducted online, and consisted of an initial brainstorming round to identify common and challenging behaviors, a second round to identify management strategies for each behavior, and two rounds to establish consensus and explore disagreement/uncertainty. KEY RESULTS:Forty-two participants completed round 1, 22 completed round 2, 30 completed round 3, and 28 completed round 4. Half of round 1 participants were female (52%), and the majority were white (83%). Most (71%) were physicians, and most participants practiced in academic primary (40%) or specialty care (19%).The most frequently cited common and challenging behaviors were missing appointments, taking opioids for symptoms other than pain, using more opioid medication than prescribed, asking for an increase in opioid dose, aggressive behavior, and alcohol and other substance use. Across behaviors, participants agreed that patient education and information gathering were important approaches. Participants also agreed that stopping opioids is not important initially, but if initial approaches do not work, tapering opioids and stopping opioids immediately may become important approaches. CONCLUSIONS:This study presents clinical expert consensus on how to manage concerning behaviors among patients on LTOT. Future research is needed to investigate how implementing these management strategies would impact patient outcomes, practice and policy.

SUBMITTER: Merlin JS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5789105 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Managing Concerning Behaviors in Patients Prescribed Opioids for Chronic Pain: A Delphi Study.

Merlin Jessica S JS Young Sarah R SR Starrels Joanna L JL Azari Soraya S Edelman E Jennifer EJ Pomeranz Jamie J Roy Payel P Saini Shalini S Becker William C WC Liebschutz Jane M JM

Journal of general internal medicine 20171204 2

<h4>Background</h4>Current guideline-recommended monitoring of patients prescribed long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) for chronic pain will likely result in increased identification of behaviors of concern for misuse and addiction, but there is a dearth of empiric evidence about how these behaviors should be managed.<h4>Objective</h4>To establish expert consensus about treatment approaches for common and challenging concerning behaviors that arise among patients on LTOT.<h4>Design</h4>We used a Del ...[more]

PMID: 29204977

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:After decades of increased opioid pain reliever prescribing, providers are rapidly reducing prescribing. We hypothesized that reduced access to prescribed opioid pain relievers among patients previously reliant upon opioid pain relievers would result in increased illicit opioid use. METHODS AND FINDINGS:We conducted a retrospective cohort study among 602 publicly insured primary care patients who had been prescribed opioids for chronic non-cancer pain for at least three consecutive months in San Francisco, recruited through convenience sampling. We conducted a historical reconstruction interview and medical chart abstraction focused on illicit substance use and opioid pain reliever prescriptions, respectively, from 2012 through the interview date in 2017-2018. We used a nested-cohort design, in which patients were classified, based on opioid pain reliever dose change, into a series of nested cohorts starting with each follow-up quarter. Using continuation-ratio models, we estimated associations between opioid prescription discontinuation or 30% increase or decrease in dose, relative to no change, and subsequent frequency of heroin and non-prescribed opioid pain reliever use, separately. Models controlled for demographics, clinical and behavioral characteristics, and past use of heroin or non-prescribed opioid pain relievers. A total of 56,372 and 56,484 participant-quarter observations were included from the 597 and 598 participants available for analyses of heroin and non-prescribed opioid pain reliever outcomes, respectively. Participants discontinued from prescribed opioids were more likely to use heroin (Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR) = 1.57, 95% CI: 1.25-1.97) and non-prescribed opioid pain relievers (AOR = 1.75, 1.45-2.11) more frequently in subsequent quarters compared to participants with unchanged opioid prescriptions. Participants whose opioid pain reliever dose increased were more likely to use heroin more frequently (AOR = 1.67, 1.32-2.12). Results held throughout sensitivity analyses. The main limitations were the observational nature of results and limited generalizability beyond safety-net settings. CONCLUSIONS:Discontinuation of prescribed opioid pain relievers was associated with more frequent non-prescribed opioid pain reliever and heroin use; increased dose was also associated with more frequent heroin use. Clinicians should be aware of these risks in determining pain management approaches.

Project description:BackgroundOver the last 2 decades, medical providers have increasingly prescribed pharmaceutical opioids for chronic non-cancer pain, while opioid overdose death rates have quadrupled. Naloxone, an opioid antagonist, can be prescribed to patients with chronic pain to reverse an opioid overdose, yet little is known about how patients perceive this emerging practice.ObjectiveThis study assessed the knowledge and attitudes toward naloxone prescribing among non-cancer patients prescribed opioids in primary care.DesignQualitative study design using semi-structured interviews.ParticipantsAdults (N = 24) prescribed high-dose (≥100 morphine mg equivalent daily dose) chronic opioid therapy in eight primary care internal medicine, family medicine and HIV practices in three large Colorado health systems.ApproachInductive and deductive methods were used to analyze interview transcripts.Key resultsThemes emerged related to knowledge of and benefits, barriers and facilitators to naloxone in primary care. Patients reported receiving limited education about opioid medication risks from providers and limited knowledge of naloxone. When provided with a description of naloxone, patients recognized its ability to reverse overdoses. In addition to pragmatic barriers, such as medication cost, barriers to naloxone acceptance included the perception that overdose risk stems from medication misuse and that providers might infer that they were misusing their opioid medication if they accepted a naloxone prescription, prompting an opioid taper. Facilitators to the acceptance of naloxone included medical providers' using empowering, non-judgmental communication practices, framing naloxone for use in "worst case scenarios" and providing education and training about opioids and naloxone.ConclusionsWhile patients recognized the utility of naloxone prescribing, we identified important barriers to patient acceptance of naloxone prescribing. To improve the naloxone prescribing acceptability in primary care practice, medical providers and health systems may need to enhance patient education, employ empowering, non-judgmental communication styles and adequately frame discussions about naloxone to address patients' fears.

Project description:BackgroundCurrent literature describes the limits and pitfalls of using opioid pharmacotherapy for chronic pain and the importance of identifying alternatives. The objective of this study was to identify the practical issues patients and providers face when accessing alternatives to opioids, and how multiple parties view these issues.MethodsQualitative data were gathered to evaluate the outcomes of acupuncture and chiropractic (A/C) services for chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP) using structured interview guides among patients with CMP (n = 90) and primary care providers (PCPs) (n = 25) purposively sampled from a managed care health care system as well as from contracted community A/C providers (n = 14). Focus groups and interviews were conducted patients with CMP with varying histories of A/C use. Plan PCPs and contracted A/C providers took part in individual interviews. All participants were asked about their experiences managing chronic pain and experience with and/or attitudes about A/C treatment. Audio recordings were transcribed and thematically coded. A summarized version of the focus group/interview guides is included in the Additional file 1.ResultsWe identified four themes around opioid use: (1) attitudes toward use of opioids to manage chronic pain; (2) the limited alternative options for chronic pain management; (3) the potential of A/C care as a tool to help manage pain; and (4) the complex system around chronic pain management. Despite widespread dissatisfaction with opioid medications for pain management, many practical barriers challenged access to other options. Most of the participants' perceived A/C care as helpful for short term pain relief. We identified that problems with timing, expectations, and plan coverage limited A/C care potential for pain relief treatment.ConclusionsThese results suggest that education about realistic expectations for chronic pain management and therapy options, as well as making A/C care more easily accessible, might lead to more satisfaction for patients and providers, and provide important input to policy makers.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01345409 , date of registration 28/4/2011.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Interest in the use of cannabis and cannabinoids to treat chronic non-cancer pain is increasing, because of their potential to reduce opioid dose requirements. We aimed to investigate cannabis use in people living with chronic non-cancer pain who had been prescribed opioids, including their reasons for use and perceived effectiveness of cannabis; associations between amount of cannabis use and pain, mental health, and opioid use; the effect of cannabis use on pain severity and interference over time; and potential opioid-sparing effects of cannabis. METHODS:The Pain and Opioids IN Treatment study is a prospective, national, observational cohort of people with chronic non-cancer pain prescribed opioids. Participants were recruited through community pharmacies across Australia, completed baseline interviews, and were followed up with phone interviews or self-complete questionnaires yearly for 4 years. Recruitment took place from August 13, 2012, to April 8, 2014. Participants were asked about lifetime and past year chronic pain conditions, duration of chronic non-cancer pain, pain self-efficacy, whether pain was neuropathic, lifetime and past 12-month cannabis use, number of days cannabis was used in the past month, and current depression and generalised anxiety disorder. We also estimated daily oral morphine equivalent doses of opioids. We used logistic regression to investigate cross-sectional associations with frequency of cannabis use, and lagged mixed-effects models to examine temporal associations between cannabis use and outcomes. FINDINGS:1514 participants completed the baseline interview and were included in the study from Aug 20, 2012, to April 14, 2014. Cannabis use was common, and by 4-year follow-up, 295 (24%) participants had used cannabis for pain. Interest in using cannabis for pain increased from 364 (33%) participants (at baseline) to 723 (60%) participants (at 4 years). At 4-year follow-up, compared with people with no cannabis use, we found that participants who used cannabis had a greater pain severity score (risk ratio 1·14, 95% CI 1·01-1·29, for less frequent cannabis use; and 1·17, 1·03-1·32, for daily or near-daily cannabis use), greater pain interference score (1·21, 1·09-1·35; and 1·14, 1·03-1·26), lower pain self-efficacy scores (0·97, 0·96-1·00; and 0·98, 0·96-1·00), and greater generalised anxiety disorder severity scores (1·07, 1·03-1·12; and 1·10, 1·06-1·15). We found no evidence of a temporal relationship between cannabis use and pain severity or pain interference, and no evidence that cannabis use reduced prescribed opioid use or increased rates of opioid discontinuation. INTERPRETATION:Cannabis use was common in people with chronic non-cancer pain who had been prescribed opioids, but we found no evidence that cannabis use improved patient outcomes. People who used cannabis had greater pain and lower self-efficacy in managing pain, and there was no evidence that cannabis use reduced pain severity or interference or exerted an opioid-sparing effect. As cannabis use for medicinal purposes increases globally, it is important that large well designed clinical trials, which include people with complex comorbidities, are conducted to determine the efficacy of cannabis for chronic non-cancer pain. FUNDING:National Health and Medical Research Council and the Australian Government.

Project description:This secondary analysis examined relationships between pain severity and interference and substance use among patients filling opioid prescriptions in Indiana and Ohio community pharmacies (n = 1,461). We likewise sought to explore the moderating role of gender in pain-substance use relations. We used patient-reported data from a cross-sectional health survey linked with controlled substance dispensing data from statewide prescription drug monitoring programs. Multivariable logistic regression estimated associations between pain severity and interference and various indices of risky prescription opioid use and non-opioid substance use. Exploratory analyses examined whether gender moderated associations. Increased pain severity was associated with increased odds of moderate- to high-risk opioid use (OR: 1.23; 95% CI: 1.16-1.31) and opioid-benzodiazepine co-use (OR: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.03-1.40). Increased pain interference was associated with greater odds of receiving opioids from multiple pharmacies or providers (OR: 1.15; 95% CI: 1.01-1.31). Increased pain severity and interference were associated with higher odds of any tobacco use (severity: OR: 1.13; 95% CI: 1.06-1.21; interference: OR: 1.07; 95% CI: 1.01-1.12) and weekly to daily sedative use (severity: OR: 1.13; 95% CI: 1.03-1.25; interference: OR: 1.13; 95% CI: 1.04-1.22). Increased pain severity was associated with decreased odds of any alcohol use (OR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.88-0.99). Gender was a significant effect modifier in associations between pain and alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis use. The study was registered in the database of clinicaltrials.gov (register number NCT03936985). Perspective: This study suggests that pain severity and interference are associated with increased use of non-medical prescription opioids, sedatives, and tobacco and decreased use of alcohol, in ways that are different between women and men. Findings may guide the development of gender-sensitive evidence-based strategies to ameliorate or prevent substance misuse among patients living with pain.

Project description:BackgroundThe Veterans Health Administration tracks urine drug tests (UDTs) among patients on long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) and recommends discussing the health effects of cannabis use.ObjectiveTo determine the occurrence of cannabis-related discussions between providers and patients on LTOT during six months following UDT positive for cannabis, and examine factors associated with documenting cannabis use.DesignWe identified patients prescribed LTOT with a UDT positive for cannabis in 2019. We developed a text-processing tool to extract discussions around cannabis use from their charts.SubjectsTwelve thousand seventy patients were included. Chart review was conducted on a random sample of 1,946 patients.Main measuresThe presence of a cannabis term in the chart suggesting documented cannabis use or cannabis-related discussions. Content of those discussions was extracted in a subset of patients. Logistic regression was used to examine the association between patient factors, including state of residence legal status, with documentation of cannabis use.Key resultsAmong the 12,070 patients, 65.8% (N = 7,948) had a cannabis term, whereas 34.1% (N = 4,122) of patients lacked a cannabis term, suggesting that no documentation of cannabis use or discussion between provider and patient took place. Among the subset of patients who had a discussion documented, 47% related to cannabis use for medical reasons, 35% related to a discussion of VA policy or legal issues, and 17% related to a discussion specific to medical risks or harm reduction strategies. In adjusted analyses, residents of states with legalized recreational cannabis were less likely to have any cannabis-related discussion compared to patients in non-legal states [OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.64-0.82].ConclusionsOne-third of LTOT patients did not have documentation of cannabis use in the chart in the 6 months following a positive UDT for cannabis. Discussions related to the medical risks of cannabis use or harm reduction strategies were uncommon.

Project description:ImportanceOpioid-prescribing policies and guidelines aimed at reducing inappropriate opioid prescribing may lead physicians to stop prescribing opioids. Patients may thus encounter difficulties finding primary care practitioners willing to care for them if they take opioids.ObjectivesTo assess practitioner willingness to accept and continue prescribing opioids to new patients with pain and whether this willingness differs across payer types.Design, setting, and participantsThis survey study used a simulated patient call audit method. A brief telephone survey was administered to all clinics followed by a call using a patient script simulating an adult patient with chronic pain who was taking long-term opioids. The patient had Medicaid or private insurance. Calls were made between June 22 and October 30, 2018, to 667 primary care clinics that served a general adult population in Michigan. Clinics that accepted both Medicaid and private insurance, took new patient appointments, and were successfully recontacted for the simulated call were eligible for the study.Main outcomes and measuresPrevalence of clinics' acceptance of new patients receiving prescription opioids overall and by clinic characteristics and insurance type.ResultsOf the 194 eligible clinics, 94 (48.4%) were randomized according to insurance type to receive calls from research assistants posing as children of patients with Medicaid and 100 (51.5%) to receive calls from those with private insurance. Overall, 79 (40.7%) stated that their practitioners would not prescribe opioids to the simulated patient. Thirty-three clinics (17.0%) requested more information before making a decision. Compared with single-practitioner clinics, clinics with more than 3 practitioners were more likely (odds ratio [OR], 2.99; 95% CI, 1.48-6.04) to accept new patients currently taking opioids. No difference was found in access based on insurance status (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.52-1.64) or whether the clinic offered medications for opioid use disorders (OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.45-2.69).Conclusions and relevanceThe findings suggest that access to primary care may be reduced for patients taking prescription opioids, which could lead to unintended consequences, such as conversion to illicit substances or reduced management of other medical comorbidities.

Dataset Information

Managing Concerning Behaviors in Patients Prescribed Opioids for Chronic Pain: A Delphi Study.

Publications

Managing Concerning Behaviors in Patients Prescribed Opioids for Chronic Pain: A Delphi Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets