Opioid tapering in older cancer survivors does not increase psychiatric or drug hospitalization rates

BACKGROUND

Opioid tapering in the general population is linked to increases in hospitalizations or emergency department visits related to psychiatric or drug-related diagnoses. Cancer survivors represent a unique population with different opioid indications, prescription patterns, and more frequent follow-up care. This study sought to describe patterns of opioid tapering among older cancer survivors and to test the hypothesis of whether older cancer survivors face increased risks of adverse events with opioid tapering.

METHODS

Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Medicare-linked database, we identified 15 002 Medicare-beneficiary cancer survivors diagnosed between 2010 and 2017 prescribed opioids consistently for at least 6 months after their cancer diagnosis. Tapering was defined as a binary time-varying event occurring with any monthly oral morphine equivalent reduction of 15% or more from the previous month. Primary diagnostic billing codes associated with emergency room or hospital admissions were used for the composite endpoint of psychiatric- or drug-related event(s).

RESULTS

There were 3.86 events per 100 patient-months, with 97.8% events being mental health emergencies, 1.91% events being overdose emergencies, and 0.25% involving both. Using a generalized estimating equation for repeated measure time-based analysis, opioid tapering was not statistically associated with acute events in the 3-month posttaper period (odds ratio [OR] = 1.02; P = .62) or at any point in the future (OR = 0.96; P = .46).

CONCLUSIONS

Opioid tapering in older cancer survivors does not appear to be linked to a higher risk of acute psychiatric- or drug-related events, in contrast to prior research in the general population.

Pain nursing for gynecologic cancer patients

Gynecological malignancy remains a prevalent cause of mortality among women. Chronic cancer pain, as a severe complication of malignancy and its therapies, accounts for a substantial burden of physical and psychological distress in affected patients. Accordingly, early identification, assessment, and standardized management of such pain are crucial in the prevention or delay of its progression. In the present review, we provide a comprehensive overview of the pathological factors that contribute to pain in patients with gynecological malignancy while highlighting the underlying mechanisms of pain in this population. In addition, we summarize several treatment modalities targeting pain management in gynecologic cancer patients, including surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy. These interventions are crucial for tumor elimination and patient survival. Chronic cancer pain exerts a significant impact on wellbeing and quality of life for patients with gynecologic cancer. Therefore, our review emphasizes the importance of addressing this pain and its psychological sequelae and advocates for a multidisciplinary approach that encompasses nursing and psychological support. In summary, this review offers valuable insights into the pathological factors underlying pain, reviews pain management modalities, and stresses the critical role of early intervention and comprehensive care in enhancing the quality of life of these patients.

Impacts of an Opioid Safety Initiative on US Veterans Undergoing Cancer Treatment

BACKGROUND

There is limited research on how the opioid epidemic and consequent risk reduction policies have affected pain management among cancer patients. The purpose of this study was to analyze how the Opioid Safety Initiative (OSI) implemented at the Veterans Health Administration affected opioid prescribing patterns and opioid-related toxicity.

METHODS

We performed an interrupted time series analysis of 42 064 opioid-naïve patients treated at the Veterans Health Administration for prostate, lung, breast, and colorectal cancer from 2011 to 2016. Segmented regression was used to evaluate the impact of the OSI on the incidence of any new opioid prescriptions, high-risk prescriptions, persistent use, and pain-related emergency department (ED) visits. We compared the cumulative incidence of adverse opioid events including an opioid-related admission or diagnosis of misuse before and after the OSI. All statistical tests were 2-sided.

RESULTS

The incidence of new opioid prescriptions was 26.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 25.0% to 28.4%) in 2011 and increased to 50.6% (95% CI = 48.3% to 53.0%) by 2013 before OSI implementation (monthly rate of change: +3.3%, 95% CI = 1.3% to 4.2%, P < .001). After the OSI, there was a decrease in the monthly rate of change for new prescriptions (-3.4%, 95% CI = -3.9 to -2.9%, P < .001). The implementation of the OSI was associated with a decrease in the monthly rate of change of concomitant benzodiazepines and opioid prescriptions (-2.5%, 95% CI = -3.2% to -1.8%, P < .001), no statistically significant change in high-dose opioids (-1.2%, 95% CI = -3.2% to 0.9%, P = .26), a decrease in persistent opioid use (-5.7%, 95% CI = -6.8% to -4.7%, P < .001), and an increase in pain-related ED visits (+3.0%, 95% CI = 1.0% to 5.0%, P = .003). The OSI was associated with a decreased incidence of opioid-related admissions (3-year cumulative incidence: 0.9% [95% CI = 0.7% to 1.0%] vs 0.5% [95% CI = 0.4% to 0.6%], P < .001) and no statistically significant change in the incidence of opioid misuse (3-year cumulative incidence: 1.2% [95% CI = 1.0% to 1.3%] vs 1.2% [95% CI = 1.1% to 1.4%], P = .77).

CONCLUSIONS

The OSI was associated with a relative decline in the rate of new, persistent, and certain high-risk opioid prescribing as well as a slight increase in the rate of pain-related ED visits. Further research on patient-centered outcomes is required to optimize opioid prescribing policies for patients with cancer.

Depression and Long-Term Prescription Opioid Use and Opioid Use Disorder: Implications for Pain Management in Cancer

OPINION STATEMENT

Preventing depression in cancer patients on long-term opioid therapy should begin with depression screening before opioid initiation and repeated screening during treatment. In weighing the high morbidity of depression and opioid use disorder in patients with chronic cancer pain against a dearth of evidence-based therapies studied in this population, patients and clinicians are left to choose among imperfect but necessary treatment options. When possible, we advise engaging psychiatric and pain/palliative specialists through collaborative care models and recommending mindfulness and psychotherapy to all patients with significant depression alongside cancer pain. Medications for depression should be reserved for moderate to severe symptoms. We recommend escitalopram/citalopram or sertraline among selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), or the serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) duloxetine, venlafaxine, or desvenlafaxine if patients have a significant component of neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia. Tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) (consider nortriptyline or desipramine, which have better anticholinergic profiles) should be considered for patients who do not respond to or tolerate SSRI/SNRIs. Existing evidence is inadequate to definitively recommend methylphenidate or novel agents, such as ketamine or psilocybin, as adjunctive treatments for cancer-related depression and pain. Physicians who treat patients with cancer pain should utilize universal precautions to limit the risk of non-medical opioid use (non-medical opioid use). Patients should be screened for non-medical opioid use behaviors at initial consultation and at regular intervals during treatment using a non-judgmental approach that reduces stigma. Co-management with an addiction specialist may be indicated for patients at high risk of non-medical opioid use and opioid use disorder. Buprenorphine and methadone are indicated for the treatment of opioid use disorder, and while they have not been systematically studied for treatment of opioid use disorder in patients with cancer pain, they do provide analgesia for cancer pain. While an interdisciplinary team approach to manage psychological stress may be beneficial, this may not be possible for patients treated outside of comprehensive cancer centers.

Temporal Trends in Opioid Prescribing Patterns Among Oncologists in the Medicare Population

BACKGROUND

In the wake of the US opioid epidemic, there have been efforts to curb opioid prescribing. However, it is unknown whether these efforts have affected prescribing among oncologists, whose patients often require opioids for symptom management. We investigated temporal patterns in opioid prescribing for Medicare beneficiaries among oncologists and nononcologists.

METHODS

We queried the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Part D prescriber dataset for all physicians between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2017. We used population-averaged multivariable negative binomial regression to estimate the association between time and per-provider opioid and gabapentinoid prescribing rate, defined as the annual number of drug claims (original prescriptions and refills) per beneficiary, among oncologists and nononcologists on a national and state level.

RESULTS

From 2013 to 2017, the national opioid-prescribing rate declined by 20.7% (P < .001) among oncologists and 22.8% (P < .001) among non oncologists. During this time frame, prescribing of gabapentin increased by 5.9% (P < .001) and 23.1% (P < .001) among oncologists and nononcologists, respectively. Among palliative care providers, opioid prescribe increased by 15.3% (P < .001). During the 5-year period, 43 states experienced a decrease (P < .05) in opioid prescribing among oncologists, and in 5 states, opioid prescribing decreased more among oncologists than nononcologists (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Between 2013 and 2017, the opioid-prescribing rate statistically significantly decreased nationwide among oncologists and nononcologists, respectively. Given similar declines in opioid prescribing among oncologists and nononcologists, there is concern that opioid-prescribing guidelines intended for the noncancer population are being applied inappropriately to patients with cancer and cancer survivors.

Racial, Ethnic, and Socioeconomic Discrepancies in Opioid Prescriptions Among Older Patients With Cancer

PURPOSE

Minority race and lower socioeconomic status are associated with lower rates of opioid prescription and undertreatment of pain in multiple noncancer healthcare settings. It is not known whether these differences in opioid prescribing exist among patients undergoing cancer treatment.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

This observational cohort study involved 33,872 opioid-naive patients of age > 65 years undergoing definitive cancer treatment. We compared rates of new opioid prescriptions by race or ethnicity and socioeconomic status controlling for differences in baseline patient, cancer, and treatment factors. To evaluate downstream impacts of opioid prescribing and pain management, we also compared rates of persistent opioid use and pain-related emergency department (ED) visits.

RESULTS

Compared with non-Hispanic White patients, the covariate-adjusted odds of receiving an opioid prescription were 24.9% (95% CI, 16.0 to 33.9, P < .001) lower for non-Hispanic Blacks, 115.0% (84.7 to 150.3, P < .001) higher for Asian-Pacific Islanders, and not statistically different for Hispanics (-1.0 to 14.0, P = .06). There was no significant association between race or ethnicity and persistent opioid use or pain-related ED visits. Patients living in a high-poverty area had higher odds (53.9% [25.4 to 88.8, P < .001]) of developing persistent use and having a pain-related ED visit (39.4% [16.4 to 66.9, P < .001]).

CONCLUSION

For older patients with cancer, rates of opioid prescriptions and pain-related outcomes significantly differed by race and area-level poverty. Non-Hispanic Black patients were associated with a significantly decreased likelihood of receiving an opioid prescription. Patients from high-poverty areas were more likely to develop persistent opioid use and have a pain-related ED visit.

Effectiveness of Electroacupuncture or Auricular Acupuncture vs Usual Care for Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain Among Cancer Survivors: The PEACE Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

The opioid crisis creates challenges for cancer pain management. Acupuncture confers clinical benefits for chronic nonmalignant pain, but its effectiveness in cancer survivors remains uncertain.

Objective

To determine the effectiveness of electroacupuncture or auricular acupuncture for chronic musculoskeletal pain in cancer survivors.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The Personalized Electroacupuncture vs Auricular Acupuncture Comparative Effectiveness (PEACE) trial is a randomized clinical trial that was conducted from March 2017 to October 2019 (follow-up completed April 2020) across an urban academic cancer center and 5 suburban sites in New York and New Jersey. Study statisticians were blinded to treatment assignments. The 360 adults included in the study had a prior cancer diagnosis but no current evidence of disease, reported musculoskeletal pain for at least 3 months, and self-reported pain intensity on the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) ranging from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain imaginable).

Interventions

Patients were randomized 2:2:1 to electroacupuncture (n = 145), auricular acupuncture (n = 143), or usual care (n = 72). Intervention groups received 10 weekly sessions of electroacupuncture or auricular acupuncture. Ten acupuncture sessions were offered to the usual care group from weeks 12 through 24.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was change in average pain severity score on the BPI from baseline to week 12. Using a gatekeeping multiple-comparison procedure, electroacupuncture and auricular acupuncture were compared with usual care using a linear mixed model. Noninferiority of auricular acupuncture to electroacupuncture was tested if both interventions were superior to usual care.

Results

Among 360 cancer survivors (mean [SD] age, 62.1 [12.7] years; mean [SD] baseline BPI score, 5.2 [1.7] points; 251 [69.7%] women; and 88 [24.4%] non-White), 340 (94.4%) completed the primary end point. Compared with usual care, electroacupuncture reduced pain severity by 1.9 points (97.5% CI, 1.4-2.4 points; P < .001) and auricular acupuncture reduced by 1.6 points (97.5% CI, 1.0-2.1 points; P < .001) from baseline to week 12. Noninferiority of auricular acupuncture to electroacupuncture was not demonstrated. Adverse events were mild; 15 of 143 (10.5%) patients receiving auricular acupuncture and 1 of 145 (0.7%) patients receiving electroacupuncture discontinued treatments due to adverse events (P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial among cancer survivors with chronic musculoskeletal pain, electroacupuncture and auricular acupuncture produced greater pain reduction than usual care. However, auricular acupuncture did not demonstrate noninferiority to electroacupuncture, and patients receiving it had more adverse events.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02979574.

"Doctor and pharmacy shopping": A fading signal for prescription opioid use monitoring?

BACKGROUND

The term "doctor and pharmacy shopping" colloquially describes patients with high multiple provider episodes (MPEs)-a threshold count of distinct prescribers and/or pharmacies involved in prescription fulfillment. Opioid-related MPEs are implicated in the global opioid crisis and heavily monitored by government databases such as U.S. state prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs). We applied a widely-used MPE definition to examine U.S. trends from a large, commercially-insured population from 2010 to 2017. Further, we examined the proportion of enrollees identified as "doctor shoppers" with evidence of a cancer diagnosis to examine the risk of false positives.

METHODS

Using a large, commercially-insured population, we identified patients with opioid-related MPEs: opioid prescriptions (Schedule II-V, no buprenorphine) filled from ≥5 prescribers AND ≥ 5 pharmacies within the past 90 days ("5x5x90d"). Quarterly rates per 100,000 enrollees (two specifications) were calculated between 2010 and 2017. We examined the trend in a recently published all-payer, 7 state cohort from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for comparison. Cancer-related ICD-9/10-CM codes were used.

RESULTS

Quarterly MPE rates declined by approximately 73 % from 18.2-4.9 per 100,000 enrollee population with controlled substance prescriptions. In 2017, nearly one fifth of these commercially-insured enrollees identified by the 5x5x90d algorithm were diagnosed with cancer. Approximately 8% of this sample included patients with ≥ 1 buprenorphine prescriptions.

CONCLUSIONS

Opioid "shopping" flags are a long-standing but rapidly fading PDMP signal. To avoid unintended consequences, such as identifying legitimate medical encounters requiring high healthcare utilization or opioid treatment, while maintaining vigilance, more nuanced and sophisticated approaches are needed.