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

Clinician Ordering and Management Patterns of Urine Toxicology Results at a Cancer Center

CONTEXT

Opioid therapy is a cornerstone for treatment of cancer-related pain, but standardized management practices for patients with cancer and aberrant urine drug test (UDT) results are lacking.

OBJECTIVES

To identify the prevalence of UDT ordering (both screening and definitive testing) in the oncology setting and to examine clinician management practices for patients with cancer on opioid therapy with aberrant definitive UDT results.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients with cancer on opioid therapy at an academic cancer center in the United States. Outcomes included UDT ordering patterns and clinician management practices in response to aberrant definitive UDT results.

RESULTS

Our study revealed an overall UDT ordering rate of 3.7% among 10,371 patients with cancer on opioid therapy. Among 143 patients for whom definitive UDTs were ordered, oncologists only ordered 14 (9.8%) UDTs, while palliative care ordered the majority (n = 129; 90.2%). Fifty-five (38.5%) patients had aberrant results, and the most common aberrancy was presence of illicit drugs 22 [15.4%]. Clinicians rarely made medication changes (20 [36.4%]) when UDT results were aberrant, and in the setting of possible fentanyl use (n = 8), only 3 (37.5%) patients were started/switched to methadone, and none were started/switched to buprenorphine.

CONCLUSION

Overall UDT ordering was infrequent for patients with cancer on opioid therapy, especially by oncologists, and clinicians rarely made prescribing changes when definitive UDT results were aberrant. More definitive guidance related to UDT ordering and opioid management are needed for patients with cancer and aberrant UDT results.

Dangerous Variation or Patient-Centered Care? Palliative Care and Pain Providers' Comfort, Experiences, and Approaches when Treating Cancer Pain With Coexisting Aberrant Behaviors

BACKGROUND

Patients with cancer-related pain are at high risk for aberrant drug use behaviors (ADB), including self-escalation, diversion and concurrent illicit substance or opioid misuse; however, limited evidence is available to guide opioid prescribing for patients with life-limiting illness and concurrent or suspected ADB. We sought to characterize how specialists evaluate for and manage these high-risk behaviors in patients with cancer-related pain.

METHODS

We conducted telephonic semi-structured interviews with palliative care and pain medicine providers. Participants discussed their own comfort and experience level with identifying and managing ADB in patients with life-limiting illness. They were subsequently presented with a series of standardized scenarios and asked to describe their concerns and management strategies.

RESULTS

95 interdisciplinary pain and palliative care specialists were contacted; 37 agreed to participate (38.9%). Analysis of interview contents revealed several central themes: (1) widespread discomfort and anxiety regarding safe and compassionate opioid prescribing for high-risk patients, (2) belief that widely used risk-mitigation tools such as opioid contracts and urine drug screens provided inadequate support for decision-making, and (3) lack of institutional and organizational support and guidance for safe prescribing strategies. Most clinicians reported self-education regarding addiction and alternative prescribing/pain management strategies. Providers varied widely in their willingness to discontinue opioid prescribing in a patient with aberrant behavior and pain associated with life-limiting illness.

CONCLUSION

Providers caring for patients demonstrating ADB and cancer-related pain struggle to balance safe prescribing with symptom management. Increased guidance is needed regarding opioid prescribing, monitoring, and discontinuation in high-risk patients.

Why and How to Integrate Early Palliative Care Into Cutting-Edge Personalized Cancer Care

Early palliative care, palliative care integrated with oncology care early in the course of illness, has myriad benefits for patients and their caregivers, including improved quality of life, reduced physical and psychological symptom burden, enhanced prognostic awareness, and reduced health care utilization at the end of life. Although ASCO and others recommend early palliative care for all patients with advanced cancer, widespread implementation of early palliative care has not been realized because of barriers such as insufficient reimbursement and a palliative care workforce shortage. Investigators have recently tested several implementation strategies to overcome these barriers, including triggers for palliative care consultations, telehealth delivery, navigator-delivered interventions, and primary palliative care interventions. More research is needed to identify mechanisms to distribute palliative care optimally and equitably. Simultaneously, the transformation of the oncology treatment landscape has led to shifts in the supportive care needs of patients and caregivers, who may experience longer, uncertain trajectories of cancer. Now, palliative care also plays a clear role in the care of patients with hematologic malignancies and may be beneficial for patients undergoing phase I clinical trials and their caregivers. Further research and clinical guidance regarding how to balance the risks and benefits of opioid therapy and safely manage cancer-related pain across this wide range of settings are urgently needed. The strengths of early palliative care in supporting patients' and caregivers' coping and centering decisions on their goals and values remain valuable in the care of patients receiving cutting-edge personalized cancer care.

American Society for Pain Management Nursing and Hospice and Palliative Nurses Association Position Statement: Pain Management at the End of Life

Fundamental to the quality of life is assisting patients in relieving pain including at the end of life. Compassionate, effective, evidence-based pain care for the dying improves the quality of life for patients and may reduce distress and complicated bereavement in the loved ones witnessing this death. However, efforts designed to mitigate the consequences of the opioid epidemic have seriously compromised pain care at the end of life. This has created an urgent need to focus on the barriers to relief, and solutions necessary to provide safe and effective pain and symptom management in this population. To that end, a committee of experts was convened by the American Society for Pain Management Nursing and the Hospice and Palliative Nursing Association. These experts reviewed the current literature, developed a draft position statement which underwent consecutive revisions. This statement was then endorsed by the respective organizations. Elucidation of barriers to effective pain control in advanced disease allows targeted interventions; including those related to clinical care, education, accessibility, and research. As nurses, we must continuously advocate for humane and dignified care, promoting ethical, effective pain and symptom management at the end of life for all.

The Pendulum: The Need to Develop a Safe, Effective, and Equitable Management Strategy for Opioids in Cancer Patients

The opioid epidemic has caused major morbidity and mortality to Americans. Although there are multiple sources of this staggering issue, one inciting factor has been the use of opioids to manage pain. Although recent efforts have changed care pathways for patients with chronic pain, the first-line management of cancer pain remains opioids. Despite this, there is very little evidence and no guidelines/regulations to assist in the management of these patients. Although the literature suggests a number of current barriers to identifying and managing the challenges (such as the preferred management of patients with opioid use disorder (OUD), the optimal approach to taperering, or approaches to disparities), there are no concrete strategies for providers to manage these circumstances. Investing in further research utilizing the national opioid settlement funding, exploring the equity gaps using community based participatory research and community health worker models, and increasing provider education pathways are all potential approaches to improving this issue. These solutions could help identify and address some of the gaps that affect cancer patients taking opioids for pain.

Opioid use and subsequent delirium risk in patients with advanced cancer in palliative care: a multicenter registry study

The prevalent use of opioids for pain management in patients with advanced cancer underscores the need for research on their neuropsychiatric impacts, particularly delirium. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the potential association between opioid use and the risk of delirium in patients with advanced cancer admitted to the acute palliative care unit. We conducted a retrospective observational study utilizing a multicenter, patient-based registry cohort by collecting the data from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2020, in South Korea. All data regarding exposures, outcomes, and covariates were obtained through retrospective chart reviews by a team of specialized medical professionals with expertise in oncology. Full unmatched and 1:1 propensity-score matched cohorts were formed, and stratification analysis was conducted. The primary outcome, delirium, was defined and diagnosed by the DSM-IV. Of the 2,066 patients with advanced cancer, we identified 42.8% (mean [SD] age, 64.4 [13.3] years; 60.8% male) non-opioid users and 57.2% (62.8 [12.5] years; 55.9% male) opioid users, respectively. Opioid use was significantly associated with an increased occurrence of delirium in patients with advanced cancer (OR, 2.02 [95% CI 1.22-3.35]). The risk of delirium in patients with advanced cancer showed increasing trends in a dose-dependent manner. High-dose opioid users showed an increased risk of delirium in patients with advanced cancer compared to non-opioid users (low-dose user: OR, 2.21 [95% CI 1.27-3.84]; high-dose user: OR, 5.75 [95% CI 2.81-11.77]; ratio of OR, 2.60 [95% CI 1.05-6.44]). Patients with old age, male sex, absence of chemotherapy during hospitalization, and non-obese status were more susceptible to increased risk of delirium in patients with cancer. In this multicenter patient-based registry cohort study, we found a significant, dose-dependent association between opioid use and increased risk of delirium in patients with advanced cancer. We also identified specific patient groups more susceptible to delirium. These findings highlight the importance of opioid prescription in these patients with advanced cancer, balancing effective doses for pain management and adverse dose-inducing delirium.

Substance Use Disorders Among US Adult Cancer Survivors

Importance

Some individuals are predisposed to cancer based on their substance use history, and others may use substances to manage cancer-related symptoms. Yet the intersection of substance use disorder (SUD) and cancer is understudied. Because SUD may affect and be affected by cancer care, it is important to identify cancer populations with a high prevalence of SUD, with the goal of guiding attention and resources toward groups and settings where interventions may be needed.

Objective

To describe the cancer type-specific prevalence of SUD among adult cancer survivors.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study used data from the annually administered National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) for 2015 through 2020 to identify adults with a history of solid tumor cancer. Substance use disorder was defined as meeting at least 1 of 4 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition) criteria for abuse or at least 3 of 6 criteria for dependence.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Per NSDUH guidelines, we made adjustments to analysis weights by dividing weights provided in the pooled NSDUH data sets by the number of years of combined data (eg, 6 for 2015-2020). The weighted prevalence and corresponding SEs (both expressed as percentages) of active SUD (ie, within the past 12 months) were calculated for respondents with any lifetime history of cancer and, in secondary analyses, respondents diagnosed with cancer within 12 months prior to taking the survey. Data were analyzed from July 2022 to June 2023.

Results

This study included data from 6101 adult cancer survivors (56.91% were aged 65 years or older and 61.63% were female). Among lifetime cancer survivors, the prevalence of active SUD was 3.83% (SE, 0.32%). Substance use disorder was most prevalent in survivors of head and neck cancer (including mouth, tongue, lip, throat, and pharyngeal cancers; 9.36% [SE, 2.47%]), esophageal and gastric cancer (9.42% [SE, 5.51%]), cervical cancer (6.24% [SE, 1.41%]), and melanoma (6.20% [SE, 1.34%]). Alcohol use disorder was the most common SUD (2.78% [SE, 0.26%]) overall and in survivors of head and neck cancer, cervical cancer, and melanoma. In survivors of esophageal and gastric cancers, cannabis use disorder was the most prevalent SUD (9.42% [SE, 5.51%]). Among respondents diagnosed with cancer in the past 12 months, the overall prevalence of active SUD was similar to that in the lifetime cancer survivor cohort (3.81% [SE, 0.74%]). However, active SUD prevalence was higher in head and neck (18.73% [SE, 10.56%]) and cervical cancer survivors (15.70% [SE, 5.35%]). The distribution of specific SUDs was different compared with that in the lifetime cancer survivor cohort. For example, in recently diagnosed head and neck cancer survivors, sedative use disorder was the most common SUD (9.81% [SE, 9.17%]).

Conclusions and Relevance

Findings of this study suggest that SUD prevalence is higher among survivors of certain types of cancer; this information could be used to identify cancer survivors who may benefit from integrated cancer and SUD care. Future efforts to understand and address the needs of adult cancer survivors with comorbid SUD should prioritize cancer populations in which SUD prevalence is high.

Expert consensus-based guidance on approaches to opioid management in individuals with advanced cancer-related pain and nonmedical stimulant use

BACKGROUND

Clinicians treating cancer-related pain with opioids regularly encounter nonmedical stimulant use (i.e., methamphetamine, cocaine), yet there is little evidence-based management guidance. The aim of the study is to identify expert consensus on opioid management strategies for an individual with advanced cancer and cancer-related pain with nonmedical stimulant use according to prognosis.

METHODS

The authors conducted two modified Delphi panels with palliative care and addiction experts. In Panel A, the patient's prognosis was weeks to months and in Panel B the prognosis was months to years. Experts reviewed, rated, and commented on the case using a 9-point Likert scale from 1 (very inappropriate) to 9 (very appropriate) and explained their responses. The authors applied the three-step analytical approach outlined in the RAND/UCLA to determine consensus and level of clinical appropriateness of management strategies. To better conceptualize the quantitative results, they thematically analyzed and coded participant comments.

RESULTS

Consensus was achieved for all management strategies. The 120 Experts were mostly women (47 [62%]), White (94 [78%]), and physicians (115 [96%]). For a patient with cancer-related and nonmedical stimulant use, regardless of prognosis, it was deemed appropriate to continue opioids, increase monitoring, and avoid opioid tapering. Buprenorphine/naloxone transition was inappropriate for a patient with a short prognosis and of uncertain appropriateness for a patient with a longer prognosis.

CONCLUSION

Study findings provide urgently needed consensus-based guidance for clinicians managing cancer-related pain in the context of stimulant use and highlight a critical need to develop management strategies to address stimulant use disorder in people with cancer.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Among palliative care and addiction experts, regardless of prognosis, it was deemed appropriate to continue opioids, increase monitoring, and avoid opioid tapering in the context of cancer-related pain and nonmedical stimulant use. Buprenorphine/naloxone transition as a harm reduction measure was inappropriate for a patient with a short prognosis and of uncertain appropriateness for a patient with a longer prognosis.

Should Buprenorphine Be Considered a First-Line Opioid for the Treatment of Moderate to Severe Cancer Pain?

Cancer pain remains a significant problem worldwide, affecting more than half of patients receiving anti-cancer treatment and most patients with advanced disease. Opioids remain the cornerstone of therapy, and morphine, given its availability, multiple formulations, price, and evidence base, is typically considered the first-line treatment for moderate to severe cancer pain. Buprenorphine has emerged in recent decades as an alternative opioid for treating chronic pain and substance use disorder (SUD). However, it remains controversial whether buprenorphine should be considered a first-line opioid for moderate to severe cancer pain. In this "Controversies in Palliative Care" article, three expert clinicians independently answer this question. Specifically, each group provides a synopsis of the key studies that inform their thought process, share practical advice on their clinical approach, and highlight the opportunities for future research. All three groups agree that there is a place for the use of buprenorphine as a first-line opioid in cancer pain. Specifically, they mention populations of elderly patients, patients with renal failure, and those with (SUD). They also underscore many unique and favorable characteristics of buprenorphine, such as the low risk for respiratory depression, lack of adverse effects on testosterone levels in men, no risk of serotonin syndrome when combined with antidepressants, and ease of use given its transdermal, transmucosal, and sublingual formulations. However, further studies are needed to guide the use of buprenorphine for cancer pain-primarily randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing buprenorphine with other opioids in various pain syndromes.

Care Throughout the Journey-The Interaction Between Primary Care and Palliative Care

Palliative care is no longer synonymous with end-of-life care, and because supply has been well outstripped by demand, much of the practice of palliative care early in a patient's illness journey will take place in the primary care clinic-referred to as primary palliative care. Referral to specialty palliative care for complex symptom management or clarification on decision-making is appropriate, and can facilitate hospice referral, if indicated and in line with patient/family goals.

Compassionate Care for People with Cancer and Opioid Use Disorder

ABSTRACT

Opioid use disorder (OUD) is an important comorbidity to assess and manage in people with cancer. In this article, the authors discuss strategies for safe opioid management in individuals with OUD and cancer-related pain using a composite case example. They highlight core approaches to pain management, including motivational interviewing, harm reduction, and evidence-based treatments, as well as advocacy for person-centered end-of-life care.

The Third Annual US Celebration of World Hospice and Palliative Care Day: A virtual coming together to unify the global palliative care community

OBJECTIVES

On 3-4 October 2022, the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Supportive Care Service and Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences hosted the Third Annual United States (US) Celebration of World Hospice and Palliative Care Day (WHPCD). The purpose of this article is to reflect on the event within the broader context of the international WHPCD theme: "healing hearts and communities." We describe lessons learned in anticipation of the fourth annual conference to be held on 3-4 October 2023.

METHODS

Description of the third annual event, conference planning team reflection, and attendee evaluation responses.

RESULTS

The Worldwide Hospice Palliative Care Alliance launched WHPCD in 2005 as an annual unified day of action to celebrate and support hospice and palliative care globally. Since 2020, the conference has attracted an increasing number of attendees from around the world. Two primary aims continue to guide the event: community building and wisdom sharing. Fifty-two interprofessional palliative care experts, advocates, patients, and caregivers provided 13 unique interactive sessions. Four hundred and fifty-eight multidisciplinary registrants from at least 17 countries joined the program. Free registration for colleagues in low- and middle-income countries, students and trainees, and individuals experiencing financial hardship remains a cornerstone of inclusion and equitable access to the event.

SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS

The US WHPCD celebration provides a virtual platform that offers opportunities for scientific dissemination and collective reflection on hospice and palliative care delivery amid significant local and global changes in clinical practice, research, policy and advocacy, and population health. We remain committed to ensuring an internationally relevant, culturally diverse, and multidisciplinary agenda that will continue to draw increased participation worldwide during future annual events.

GI Symptoms in Pancreatic Cancer

This review will apply a multidisciplinary approach to GI symptoms with attention to symptom assessment (instruments and qualitative aspects), differential diagnosis, and recent findings relevant to management of symptoms and underlying diseases. We conclude that further development of supportive interventions for GI symptoms for both patient and caregivers has the potential to reduce distress from GI symptoms, and anticipate better symptom control with advances in scientific knowledge and improvement of the evidence base.

Society of Pain and Palliative Care Pharmacists White Paper on the Role of Opioid Stewardship Pharmacists

Opioid stewardship is one essential function of pain and palliative care pharmacists and a critical need in the United States. In recent years, this country has been plagued by two public health emergencies: an opioid crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic, which has exacerbated the opioid epidemic through its economic and psychosocial toll. To develop an opioid stewardship program, a systematic approach is needed. This will be detailed in part here by the Opioid Stewardship Taskforce of the Society of Pain and Palliative Care Pharmacists (SPPCP), focusing on the role of the pharmacist. Many pain and palliative care pharmacists have made significant contributions to the development and daily operation of such programs while also completing other competing clinical tasks, including direct patient care. To ensure dedicated time and attention to critical opioid stewardship efforts, SPPCP recommends and endorses opioid stewardship models employing a full time, opioid stewardship pharmacist in both the inpatient and outpatient setting. Early research suggests that opioid stewardship pharmacists are pivotal to improving opioid metrics and pain care outcomes. However, further research and development in this area of practice is needed and encouraged.

Stigmatizing Language Expressed Towards Individuals With Current or Previous OUD Who Have Pain and Cancer: A Qualitative Study

CONTEXT

Stigma is known to impact the care of patients with opioid use disorder (OUD).

OBJECTIVES

This qualitative study seeks to understand how stigma is expressed in the medical chart by healthcare workers towards patients with cancer pain and OUD treated at an academic medical center.

METHODS

This descriptive qualitative study utilized a thematic analysis approach to analyze the medical charts of 25 hospitalized patients with current or previous opioid use disorder and cancer with respect to their pain care in forty pain-related hospital admissions to a tertiary academic center from 2015 to 2020. The codebook utilized a well-characterized stigma framework and emerging themes were identified through an iterative, comparative method. COREQ guidelines were followed.

RESULTS

Evidence of stigma marking was present in the medical chart aligning with several intersecting stigmas. Drivers such as blame and stereotypes impeded pain care, while facilitators such as legal or policy influences and non-care advocates could be either positive or negative determinants to pain care. Care by known providers within the healthcare environment was largely a facilitator of improved pain care.

CONCLUSIONS

Healthcare provider stigma must be addressed as its effects are both quantitatively and qualitatively affecting patient care; in particular access to pain treatment. Continuity of care by known care providers may improve pain care for patients with cancer and OUD who are acutely hospitalized.

Expert Panel Consensus on State-Level Policies to Improve Engagement and Retention in Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder

Importance

In the US, recent legislation and regulations have been considered, proposed, and implemented to improve the quality of treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD). However, insufficient empirical evidence exists to identify which policies are feasible to implement and successfully improve patient and population-level outcomes.

Objective

To examine expert consensus on the effectiveness and the ability to implement state-level OUD treatment policies.

Evidence Review

This qualitative study used the ExpertLens online platform to conduct a 3-round modified Delphi process to convene 66 stakeholders (health care clinicians, social service practitioners, addiction researchers, health policy decision-makers, policy advocates, and persons with lived experience). Stakeholders participated in 1 of 2 expert panels on 14 hypothetical state-level policies targeting treatment engagement and linkage, evidence-based and integrated care, treatment flexibility, and monitoring or support services. Participants rated policies in round 1, discussed results in round 2, and provided final ratings in round 3. Participants used 4 criteria associated with either the effectiveness or implementability to rate and discuss each policy. The effectiveness panel (n = 29) considered policy effects on treatment engagement, treatment retention, OUD remission, and opioid overdose mortality. The implementation panel (n = 34) considered the acceptability, feasibility, affordability, and equitability of each policy. We measured consensus using the interpercentile range adjusted for symmetry analysis technique from the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method.

Findings

Both panels reached consensus on all items. Experts viewed 2 policies (facilitated access to medications for OUD and automatic Medicaid enrollment for citizens returning from correctional settings) as highly implementable and highly effective in improving patient and population-level outcomes. Participants rated hub-and-spoke-type policies and provision of financial incentives to emergency departments for treatment linkage as effective; however, they also rated these policies as facing implementation barriers associated with feasibility and affordability. Coercive policies and policies levying additional requirements on individuals with OUD receiving treatment (eg, drug toxicology testing, counseling requirements) were viewed as low-value policies (ie, decreasing treatment engagement and retention, increasing overdose mortality, and increasing health inequities).

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this study may provide urgently needed consensus on policies for states to consider either adopting or deimplementing in their efforts to address the opioid overdose crisis.