Compliance with Opioid Therapy: Distinguishing Clinical Characteristics and Demographics Among Patients with Cancer Pain

Investigating the risk factors for nonadherence to analgesic medications in cancer patients: Establishing a nomogram model

Objective

The substantial prevalence of nonadherence to analgesic medication among individuals diagnosed with cancer imposes a significant strain on both patients and healthcare resources. The objective of this study is to develop and authenticate a nomogram model for assessing nonadherence to analgesic medication in cancer patients.

Methods

Clinical information, demographic data, and medication adherence records of cancer pain patients were gathered from the Affiliated Hospital of Chengde Medical University between April 2020 and March 2023. The risk factors associated with analgesic medication nonadherence in cancer patients were analyzed using the least absolute selection operator (LASSO) regression model and multivariate logistic regression. Additionally, a nomogram model was developed. The bootstrap method was employed to internally verify the model. Discrimination and accuracy of the nomogram model were evaluated using the Concordance index (C-index), area under the receiver Operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC), and calibration curve. The potential clinical value of the nomogram model was established through decision curve analysis (DCA) and clinical impact curve.

Results

The study included a total of 450 patients, with a nonadherence rate of 43.33%. The model incorporated seven factors: age, address, smoking history, number of comorbidities, use of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), use of opioids, and PHQ-8. The C-index of the model was found to be 0.93 (95% CI: 0.907-0.953), and the ROC curve demonstrated an AUC of 0.929. Furthermore, the DCA and clinical impact curves indicate that the built model can accurately predict cancer pain patients' medication adherence performance.

Conclusions

A nomogram model based on 7 risk factors has been successfully developed and validated for long-term analgesic management of cancer patients.

Trends in co-prescribed opioids and benzodiazepines, non-prescribed opioids and benzodiazepines, and schedule-I drugs in the United States, 2013 to 2019

Concurrent opioid and benzodiazepine users are at increased risk of overdose death, compared to opioid-only users. The objective of this study was to understand recent time trends in opioid and benzodiazepine concurrent use, misuse, and schedule-I drug use, and how these differ by age, sex and geographic region. Commercial, United States medical insurance claims data and urine drug test results from 2013 to 2019 were used to study the outcomes of concurrent use (n = 756,258), schedule-I drug use (n = 746,672) and prescription misuse (n = 452,523). Drug use outcomes were studied at quarterly time points for each year. Data analysis included joinpoint regression models to estimate quarterly drug use rates, determined by positive urine tests for corresponding drug categories, and was conducted from November 2021 through January 2022. Concurrent use decreased from 19.3% to 9.8%, misuse generally decreased from 75.6% to 55.1%, and schedule-I use increased from 8.9% to 13.8%, from 2013 to 2019. Concurrent use decreased at greater rates after 2016, after the Centers for Disease Control and Food and Drug Administration guidelines against concurrent use were released, while schedule-I use increased, notably after the 2014 hydrocodone reschedule. This indicates a potential shift from prescription use to non-prescribed drug use, where most affected groups included males, younger individuals, and those residing in Northeastern regions. Study results support public health initiatives focused on policy that increases access to multimodal pain management and substance use disorder management programs-critical steps in preventing patients from seeking non-prescribed drugs for self- medicating due to pain or addiction.

Should Urine Drug Screen be Done Universally or Selectively in Palliative Care Patients on Opioids?

Urine drug screen (UDS) is a useful test conducted in patients receiving opioids for chronic pain to aid in validating patient adherence to opioid treatment and to detect any nonmedical opioid use (NMOU). One controversial topic regarding its use in palliative care is whether to conduct the test universally and randomly in all patients who are receiving opioids for chronic pain irrespective of their level of risk for NMOU, or to conduct the test selectively in only those with a high risk for engaging in NMOU behaviors. In this "Controversies in Palliative Care" article, 3 expert clinicians independently answer this question. Specifically, each expert provides a synopsis of the key studies that inform their thought processes, share practical advice on their clinical approach, and highlight the opportunities for future research. They all agreed that UDS has some utility in routine palliative care practice but acknowledged the insufficient existing evidence supporting its efficacy. They also underscored the need to improve clinician proficiency in UDS interpretation to enhance its utility. Two experts endorsed random UDS in all patients receiving opioids regardless of their risk profile while the other expert recommended targeted UDS until there is more clinical evidence to support universal, random testing. Use of more methodologically robust study designs in UDS research, examination of the cost-effectiveness of UDS tests, development of innovative programs to manage NMOU behaviors, and investigation of the impact of improved clinician proficiency in UDS interpretation on clinical outcomes, were important areas of future research that the experts identified.

Immunoassay Urine Drug Testing among Patients Receiving Opioids at a Safety-Net Palliative Medicine Clinic

BACKGROUND

Few studies have examined the use of immunoassay urine drug testing of cancer patients in palliative care clinics.

OBJECTIVES

We examined the frequency of immunoassay urine drug test (UDT) abnormalities and the factors associated with aberrancy at a safety-net hospital palliative medicine clinic.

METHODS

A retrospective review of the electronic medical records of consecutive eligible patients seen at the outpatient palliative medicine clinic in a resource-limited safety-net hospital system was conducted between 1 September 2015 and 31 December 2020. We collected longitudinal data on patient demographics, UDT findings, and potential predictors of aberrant results.

RESULTS

Of the 913 patients in the study, 500 (55%) underwent UDT testing, with 455 (50%) having the testing within the first three visits. Among those tested within the first three visits, 125 (27%) had aberrant UDT results; 44 (35%) of these 125 patients were positive for cocaine. In a multivariable regression model analysis of predictors for aberrant UDT within the first three visits, non-Hispanic White race (odds ratio (OR) = 2.13; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.03-4.38; p = 0.04), history of illicit drug use (OR = 3.57; CI: 1.78-7.13; p < 0.001), and history of marijuana use (OR = 7.05; CI: 3.85-12.91; p < 0.001) were independent predictors of an aberrant UDT finding.

CONCLUSION

Despite limitations of immunoassay UDT, it was able to detect aberrant drug-taking behaviors in a significant number of patients seen at a safety-net hospital palliative care clinic, including cocaine use. These findings support universal UDT monitoring and utility of immunoassay-based UDT in resource-limited settings.

A systematic review of assessment approaches to predict opioid misuse in people with cancer

Context

Cancer prevalence is increasing, with many patients requiring opioid analgesia. Clinicians need to ensure patients receive adequate pain relief. However, opioid misuse is widespread, and cancer patients are at risk.

Objectives

This study aims (1) to identify screening approaches that have been used to assess and monitor risk of opioid misuse in patients with cancer; (2) to compare the prevalence of risk estimated by each of these screening approaches; and (3) to compare risk factors among demographic and clinical variables associated with a positive screen on each of the approaches.

Methods

Medline, Cochrane Controlled Trial Register, PubMed, PsycINFO, and Embase databases were searched for articles reporting opioid misuse screening in cancer patients, along with handsearching the reference list of included articles. Bias was assessed using tools from the Joanna Briggs Suite.

Results

Eighteen studies met the eligibility criteria, evaluating seven approaches: Urine Drug Test (UDT) (n = 8); the Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain (SOAPP) and two variants, Revised and Short Form (n = 6); the Cut-down, Annoyed, Guilty, Eye-opener (CAGE) tool and one variant, Adapted to Include Drugs (n = 6); the Opioid Risk Tool (ORT) (n = 4); Prescription Monitoring Program (PMP) (n = 3); the Screen for Opioid-Associated Aberrant Behavior Risk (SOABR) (n = 1); and structured/specialist interviews (n = 1). Eight studies compared two or more approaches. The rates of risk of opioid misuse in the studied populations ranged from 6 to 65%, acknowledging that estimates are likely to have varied partly because of how specific to opioids the screening approaches were and whether a single or multi-step approach was used. UDT prompted by an intervention or observation of aberrant opioid behaviors (AOB) were conclusive of actual opioid misuse found to be 6.5–24%. Younger age, found in 8/10 studies; personal or family history of anxiety or other mental ill health, found in 6/8 studies; and history of illicit drug use, found in 4/6 studies, showed an increased risk of misuse.

Conclusions

Younger age, personal or familial mental health history, and history of illicit drug use consistently showed an increased risk of opioid misuse. Clinical suspicion of opioid misuse may be raised by data from PMP or any of the standardized list of AOBs. Clinicians may use SOAPP-R, CAGE-AID, or ORT to screen for increased risk and may use UDT to confirm suspicion of opioid misuse or monitor adherence. More research into this important area is required.

Significance of results

This systematic review summarized the literature on the use of opioid misuse risk approaches in people with cancer. The rates of reported risk range from 6 to 65%; however, true rate may be closer to 6.5–24%. Younger age, personal or familial mental health history, and history of illicit drug use consistently showed an increased risk of opioid misuse. Clinicians may choose from several approaches. Limited data are available on feasibility and patient experience.

PROSPERO registration number.

CRD42020163385.

Identifying Prevalence of and Risk Factors for Abnormal Urine Drug Tests in Cancer Pain Patients

CONTEXT

Opioids have become a mainstay treatment for severe cancer pain. Although opioid prescribing has decreased, opioid mortality continues to rise. Utilizing urine drug tests (UDT) can help monitor medication adherence and identify use of unprescribed or illicit substances.

OBJECTIVES

To identify the prevalence of abnormal UDT among oncologic pain patients, associated demographic and clinical factors, and the most common abnormal substances.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of 2472 patients with a cancer diagnosis and documented UDT in a single center was conducted from January 1, 2018 to February 15, 2020. Multivariable analyses were conducted for 10 baseline patient factors on each of the two primary outcomes-illicit drugs excluding tetrahydrocannabinol and amphetamines and detected-not-prescribed.

RESULTS

Of the 2472 patients, 840 patients (34%) had abnormal results. For illicit drugs, the significant factors (incidence rate ratio [95% CI]) were age (45-54 vs. ≥ 65 years: 7.27 [2.27-23.23]), race (black vs. white: 2.99 [1.39-6.42]), smoking status (current vs. former: 2.63 [1.41-4.90]); never vs. former: 0.27 (0.10-0.76), and benzodiazepine use (use vs. no use: 2.06 [1.03-4.12]). For detected-not-prescribed, the significant factors (incidence rate ratio [95% CI]) were race (black vs. white: 1.37 [1.01-1.85]), smoking status (current vs. former: 1.27 [1.00-1.62]); never vs. former: 0.82 (0.67-1.00), log-transformed morphine milligram equivalence (1.04 [1.01-1.07]), and benzodiazepine use (use vs. no use: 1.64 [1.35-1.98]).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that oncologic pain patients are not a risk-free population for abnormal UDT, thus recommends a UDT with initial opioid prescriptions and annually thereafter, with more frequent tests for patients suspected to be at higher risk for misuse.

Potential inappropriate use of strong opioid analgesics in cancer outpatients during the last year of life in France and associated factors

AIMS

A better knowledge of opioid prescribing patterns would help to identify areas of potential improvement in cancer pain management. This study aimed to identify potential inappropriate use (PIU) of strong opioid analgesics in cancer outpatients in their last year of life.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort of cancer patients who died between 2011 and 2014 and were exposed as outpatient to a strong opioid analgesic in the last year of life was identified in the Echantillon Généraliste de Bénéficiaires (a 1/97th random sample of the French general population). Prescribing patterns of strong opioids were analysed and PIU was defined by at least 1 of these criteria: overlapping prescriptions; contraindicated prescriptions; lack of laxatives; potential drug interactions; prescription in patients hospitalized for opioid-related disorders. Factors associated with PIU were investigated through a multiple logistic regression model.

RESULTS

One third of the 2236 patients (median age 72 years [interquartile range: 61-82], 44.1% women) presented a PIU (insufficient laxative prescription [19.6% of patients], insufficient background treatment with transmucosal fentanyl [14.8%], overlapping prescriptions [2.6%]). The rate of PIU significantly decreased from 37.6% (2011) to 29.8% (2014). For patients with a duration of opioid use ≥3 months, factors associated with PIU were fentanyl prescription (adjusted odds ratio = 2.36; 95% confidence interval [1.86-3.00]) and previous use of strong opioid (adjusted odds ratio = 1.88; [1.50-2.36]).

CONCLUSION

In France, 1/3 of cancer patients exposed to strong opioids experienced PIU and this proportion tended to decrease over time. There is still room for progress in cancer pain management at the end of life.

Random urine drug testing among patients receiving opioid therapy for cancer pain

BACKGROUND

There is limited information regarding the true frequency of nonmedical opioid use (NMOU) among patients receiving opioid therapy for cancer pain. Data to guide patient selection for urine drug testing (UDT) as well as the timing and frequency of ordering UDT are insufficient. This study examined the frequency of abnormal UDT among patients with cancer who underwent random UDT and their characteristics.

METHODS

Demographic and clinical information for patients with cancer who underwent random UDT were retrospectively reviewed and compared with a historical cohort that underwent targeted UDT. Random UDT was ordered regardless of a patient's risk potential for NMOU. Targeted UDT was ordered on the basis of a physician's estimation of a patient's risk for NMOU.

RESULTS

In all, 552 of 573 eligible patients (96%) underwent random UDT. Among these patients, 130 (24%) had 1 or more abnormal results; 38 of the 88 patients (43%) who underwent targeted UDT had 1 or more abnormal results. When marijuana was excluded, 15% of the random group and 37% of the targeted group had abnormal UDT findings (P < .001). It took a shorter time from the initial consultation to detect 1 or more abnormalities with the random test than the targeted test (median, 130 vs 274 days; P = .02). Abnormal random UDT was independently associated with younger age (P < .0001), male sex (P = .03), Cut Down, Annoyed, Guilty, and Eye Opener-Adapted to Include Drugs positivity (P = .001), and higher Edmonton Symptom Assessment System anxiety (P = .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately 1 in 4 patients receiving opioids for cancer pain at a supportive care clinic who underwent random UDT had 1 or more abnormalities. Random UDT detected abnormalities earlier than the targeted test. These findings suggest that random UDT is justified among patients with cancer pain.

Opioid Risk Screening in an Oncology Palliative Medicine Clinic

PURPOSE

Little information exists on factors that predict opioid misuse in oncology. We adopted the Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients With Pain-Short Form (SOAPP-SF) and toxicology testing to assess for opioid misuse risk. The primary objective was to (1) identify characteristics associated with a high-risk SOAPP-SF score and noncompliant toxicology test, and (2) determine SOAPP-SF utility to predict noncompliant toxicology tests.

METHODS

From July 1, 2017, to December 31, 2017, new patients completed the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), SOAPP-SF, and narcotic use agreement. Toxicology test results were collected at subsequent visits.

RESULTS

Of 223 distinct patients, 96% completed SOAPP-SF. Mean age was 61 ± 12.7 years, 58% were female, 68% were White, and 28% were Black. Eighty-three eligible patients (38%) completed toxicology testing. Younger age, male sex, and increased ESAS depression scores were associated with high-risk SOAPP-SF scores. Smoking habit was associated with an aberrant test. An SOAPP-SF score ≥ 3 predicted a noncompliant toxicology test.

CONCLUSION

Male sex, young age, and higher ESAS depression score were associated with a high SOAPP-SF score. Smoking habit was associated with an aberrant test. An SOAPP-SF of ≥ 3 (sensitivity, 0.74; specificity, 0.64), not ≥ 4, was predictive of an aberrant test; however, performance characteristics were decreased from those published by Inflexxion, for ≥ 4 (sensitivity, 0.86; specificity, 0.67). The specificity warrants caution in falsely labeling patients. The SOAPP-SF may aid in meeting National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommendations to screen oncology patients for opioid misuse.

When Patients Take Charge of Opioids: Self-Management Concerns and Practices Among Cancer Outpatients in the Context of Opioid Crisis

CONTEXT

With concerns about opioid prescribing practices prominent in the professional and lay literature, there is less focus on patients' self-management of opioids for cancer pain and potential safety risks.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate reports of opioid self-management practices and concerns among patients undergoing active cancer treatments-a group excluded from the scope of most policy initiatives on prescription opioids.

METHODS

This sequential multimethod study used freelisting (n = 65) and open-ended semistructured interviews with a racially diverse subgroup (n = 32). Adult ambulatory patients with solid malignancies or multiple myeloma and pain (≥4 on a scale of 0-10) were recruited from an urban National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center in Philadelphia. Freelists were analyzed using consensus analysis and semistructured interview data were analyzed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

In freelisting, "pain relief" emerged as the primary term in relation to taking pain medications preceding "addiction" concerns. In interviews, patients described several heuristics and some potentially unsafe practices to minimize opioid use to a self-defined "normal." These included reducing opioid dose by cutting pills; self-tapering off opioids; using extended-release/long-acting opioids on an as-needed basis; mixing over-the-counter, nonopioid analgesics; and using illicit drugs to avoid "harder medicines" (opioids). Many patients preferred nonopioid treatments for pain but invariably faced access barriers. Some described assuming stewardship of their prescribed opioids and felt that oncology clinicians are quick to prescribe opioids without providing workable alternatives.

CONCLUSIONS

Risks related to self-management of opioids among cancer outpatients, including potential overdose risks, need urgent attention. Interventions are needed for improving clinician-patient communication, patient education, safety, and access to effective nonopioid alternatives.

Patient-reported reasons for and predictors of noncompliance with compression stockings in a randomized trial of stockings to prevent postthrombotic syndrome

INTRODUCTION

Elastic compression stockings (ECSs) are used to treat symptoms of venous insufficiency. However, lack of patient compliance can limit their effectiveness. In a secondary analysis of the SOX Trial, a randomized trial of active vs. placebo ECSs worn for 2 years to prevent postthrombotic syndrome after deep vein thrombosis, we aimed to describe patient-reported reasons for nondaily use of ECS and to identify predictors of noncompliance during follow-up.

METHODS

At each follow-up visit of the SOX Trial, patients were asked how many days per week they wore study stockings, and if not worn daily, to specify the reason(s). Reasons for nondaily use of ECSs were tabulated. Multiple logistic regression modeling was used to identify predictors of stocking noncompliance during follow-up (defined as use <3 days per week).

RESULTS

Among the 776 patients who attended at least 1 follow-up visit, daily use of stockings at each visit was similar in the active and placebo ECS groups. Reasons for nondaily use of stockings was most frequently related to aversive aspects of stockings (~three-fourths of patients) and less often related to patient behaviors (~one-fourth of patients). In multivariate analyses, behavior-related and aversive aspect-related reasons for nondaily use of ECSs at the 1-month visit were significant predictors of noncompliance during follow-up (odds ratio [OR] = 4.41 [95% confidence interval, 2.12-9.17] and OR = 3.99 [2.62-6.08], respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Aversive aspects of ECSs and patient behaviors are important reasons for noncompliance. Improving the appeal and tolerability of ECS and education directed at modifying patient behaviors may improve compliance.

Urine Drug Testing in Cancer Pain Management

Urine drug test (UDT) is an effective tool used in chronic opioid therapy to ensure patient adherence to treatment and detect nonmedical opioid use. The two main types of UDT used in routine clinical practice are the screening tests or immunoassays and the confirmatory tests or laboratory-based specific drug identification tests such as gas chromatography-mass spectrometry, liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry, or tandem mass spectrometry. UDT produces objective data on some nonmedical opioid use that may otherwise go undetected, such as the use of undisclosed medications, the nonuse of prescribed medications, and the use of illegal drugs. It allows clinicians to initiate an open and effective conversation about nonmedical opioid use with their patients. However, the test has certain limitations that sometimes compromise its use. Its interpretation can be challenging to clinicians because of the complexity of the opioid metabolic pathways. Clear guidelines or recommendations regarding the use of UDT in cancer pain is limited. As a result, UDT appears to be underused among patients with cancer pain receiving opioid therapy. More studies are needed to help standardize the integration and use of UDT in routine cancer pain management. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Despite its potential benefits, urine drug testing (UDT) appears to be underused among patients with cancer pain receiving opioid therapy. This is partly because its interpretation can be challenging owing to the complexity of the opioid metabolic pathways. Information regarding the use of UDT in opioid therapy among patients with cancer is limited. This review article will improve clinician proficiency in UDT interpretation and assist oncologists in developing appropriate treatment plans during chronic opioid therapy.

Balancing opioid analgesia with the risk of nonmedical opioid use in patients with cancer

The current opioid crisis has brought renewed attention and scrutiny to opioid prescriptions. When patients receiving opioid therapy for pain engage in nonmedical opioid use (NMOU) or diversion, untoward consequences can occur. New evidence suggests that patients with cancer might be at a higher risk of NMOU than was previously thought, but clinical evidence still supports the use of opioid analgesics as the gold standard to treat cancer-related pain, creating a dilemma in patient management. Clinicians are encouraged to adopt a universal precautions approach to patients with cancer receiving opioids, which includes screening all patients; discussing the risks, benefits, adverse effects and alternatives of opioid therapy; and providing education on safe use, storage and disposal. Use of urine drug tests, prescription drug monitoring programmes and close observation of behaviours related to opioid use help to ensure treatment adherence, detect NMOU and support therapeutic decision-making. These measures can optimize the risk-benefit ratio while supporting safe opioid use. In this Review, we examine the role of opioids in cancer pain, the risk of substance use disorder and methods to achieve the right balance between the two in order to ensure safe opioid use.

Opioid Prescribing in an Opioid Crisis: What Basic Skills Should an Oncologist Have Regarding Opioid Therapy?

OPINION STATEMENT

Although clinical evidence supports the use of opioids for cancer-related pain, doing so amidst the current opioid crisis remains a challenge. A proportion of opioid-related deaths in the USA are attributable to prescription opioids, which implicates health care providers as one of the major contributors. It is therefore even more important now for all clinicians to follow safe and effective opioid prescribing practices. Oncologists are often in the frontline of cancer pain management. They are encouraged to use validated tools to screen all patients receiving opioids for high risk behaviors. Those identified as high risk for potential abuse of opioids should be monitored closely. When aberrant behavior is detected, the clinician will need to openly discuss the issue and its possible implications. Oncologists may then implement measures such as limiting the dose and quantity of opioids prescribed, shortening interval between follow-ups for refills to allow for increased monitoring, setting boundaries/limitations, weaning off opioid analgesics, or/and referring to a pain or palliative medicine or drug addiction expert for co-management when necessary. These efforts may aid oncologists in safely managing cancer pain in the environment of national opioid crisis.

Challenges and concerns of persistent opioid use in cancer patients

INTRODUCTION

As a result of advancements in the diagnosis and treatment of cancer, two-thirds of individuals suffering with cancer survive more than 5 years after diagnosis, resulting in a large proportion of patients with chronic cancer pain alone or associated with chronic noncancer pain. There is a paucity of literature in reference to diagnosis and management of chronic cancer pain, specifically in relation to persistent opioid use, its effectiveness, and adverse consequences. Areas covered: This review covers the prevalence of chronic cancer pain and its association with multiple comorbidities, persistent opioid use and related consequences, and challenges in managing persistent chronic cancer pain patients. In addition, discussion includes therapeutic opioid use, effectiveness of opioid therapy, assessment of risk of persistent opioid use, and guidance for responsible, persistent opioid prescribing for chronic cancer pain patients. Expert commentary: Despite extensive availability of opioids and related common adverse consequences, including the potential for escalating use, abuse, and deaths, greater awareness is needed to counteract the present atmosphere and appropriately manage patients with chronic cancer pain. Chronic cancer pain is a complex biopsychosocial phenomenon with multiple comorbidities. Opioid therapy has become extremely complex with negative connotations related to escalating abuse and related deaths.