Assessment tools for problematic opioid use in palliative care: A scoping review

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.

Substance use disorders in hospice palliative care: A narrative review of challenges and a case for physician intervention

OBJECTIVES

Substance use disorders (SUDs) are frequently encountered in hospice palliative care (HPC) and pose substantial quality-of-life issues for patients. However, most HPC physicians do not directly treat their patients' SUDs due to several institutional and personal barriers. This review will expand upon arguments for the integration of SUD treatment into HPC, will elucidate challenges for HPC providers, and will provide recommendations that address these challenges.

METHODS

A thorough review of the literature was conducted. Arguments for the treatment of SUDs and recommendations for physicians have been synthesized and expanded upon.

RESULTS

Treating SUD in HPC has the potential to improve adherence to care, access to social support, and outcomes for pain, mental health, and physical health. Barriers to SUD treatment in HPC include difficulties with accurate assessment, insufficient training, attitudes and stigma, and compromised pain management regimens. Recommendations for physicians and training environments to address these challenges include developing familiarity with standardized SUD assessment tools and pain management practice guidelines, creating and disseminating visual campaigns to combat stigma, including SUD assessment and intervention as fellowship competencies, and obtaining additional training in psychosocial interventions.

SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS

By following these recommendations, HPC physicians can improve their competence and confidence in working with individuals with SUDs, which will help meet the pressing needs of this population.

Urine drug testing in the context of opioid analgesic prescribing for chronic pain: a content analysis of U.S. state laws in 2022

BACKGROUND

In response to the opioid crisis, U.S. states have passed laws requiring urine drug testing (UDT) when opioid analgesics are prescribed for chronic pain. We sought to identify state law UDT requirements.

METHODS

We searched NexisUni legal database using terms related to UDT, chronic pain, and opioids. We included laws effective during spring 2022 that required UDT when opioids were prescribed for chronic pain. We performed deductive content analysis, coding laws for mandated UDT frequency, type of clinician and type of payer to whom the law applied, and circumstances under which UDT was mandated.

RESULTS

We found 32 laws across 13 states that met our inclusion criteria. UDT requirements varied substantially by state, including with regard to the type of clinician to whom the law applied, the mandated frequency of UDT (eg, at initiation/assessment, at least annually, more than once per year), and the circumstances in which UDT was mandated (eg, patient had substance use disorder; dosage/day threshold).

DISCUSSION

Relatively few states have UDT mandates associated with prescribing opioids as chronic pain treatment. When developing policy indicators for empirical studies, researchers evaluating how UDT policy affects health outcomes must consider the complexity and lack of uniformity of UDT requirements. In addition, even if states mandate UDT, it is unclear whether clinicians understand the best way to use the test results.

Drug dependence epidemiology in palliative care medicinal cannabis trials

OBJECTIVES

Drug dependence is becoming increasingly common and meeting palliative care patients with substance use disorders is inevitable. However, data on substance use in these patients are lacking. This study aims to evaluate the prevalence of drug dependence in palliative care patients with advanced cancer and correlate with symptom distress and opioid use.

METHODS

Palliative care patients with advanced cancer interested in participation in a medicinal cannabis trial were required to complete Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST), Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) and record of concomitant medications including baseline opioid use as part of the eligibility screen.

RESULTS

Of the 182 participants, 167 (92%) reported lifetime alcohol and 132/182 (73%) lifetime tobacco use. No participant reached the threshold criteria for high risk of drug dependence with majority being low risk. There was no correlation between ASSIST score, ESAS and oral morphine equivalent.

CONCLUSION

This study identified alcohol and tobacco as the main substances used in this group of patients and that most were of very low risk for drug dependence. This suggests routine drug screening for palliative care patient may not be justified, but the high possibility of questionnaire bias is acknowledged.

Assessing risk for nonmedical opioid use among patients with cancer: Stability of the CAGE-AID questionnaire across clinical care settings

OBJECTIVES

The Cut down, Annoyed, Guilty, and Eye opener- Adapted to Include Drugs (CAGE-AID) questionnaire (CA) is a validated screening tool used to assess risk for nonmedical opioid use (NMOU) in patients receiving opioids for cancer pain. Data on consistencies and variations in responses to the CA between different clinical settings are lacking. We evaluated the frequency and consistency in scoring of the CA among patients seen between the first inpatient consult (T1) and the first outpatient follow-up (T2) visits.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of 333 consecutive patients seen at both T1 and T2 within 3 months between August 2016 and March 2017 was reviewed.

RESULTS

Median age was 58 years (range, 18-87 years); 53% were female. CA was completed for 88% of patients at T1 and 94% at T2. Of these, 10% and 13% were CAGE-AID positive, respectively. CA score changed from negative to positive in 4% and from positive to negative in 1% of patients between T1 and T2. Kappa coefficient for agreement of CA between T1 and T2 was 0.74 (95% CI: 0.62-0.86, p = 0.02).

SIGNIFICANT OF RESULTS

Completion rate and consistency of patient responses to the CA were high irrespective of clinical setting. Of these patients, 10% and 13% were CA positive which is suggestive of high risk for NMOU. Further studies are needed to evaluate ways to ensure more consistency in the completion of the CA and enhance its utilization in routine clinical practice.

Opioid Disposal Practices of Patients with Life-Limiting Cancers in an Outpatient Palliative Care Clinic: A Cross-Sectional Study

Background: Patients with life-limiting cancers are commonly prescribed opioids to manage pain, dyspnea, and cough. Proper prescription opioid disposal is essential to prevent poisonings and deaths. Objective: We examined opioid disposal practices of patients referred to a Canadian outpatient palliative care clinic (OPCC). The primary objective was to determine the prevalence of OPCC patients who did not routinely dispose their opioids. The secondary objectives were to examine their methods of opioid disposal and to identify patient characteristics associated with routine disposal of opioids. Design and Setting: This cross-sectional study involved a retrospective chart review of new, adult patients who were seen in a Canadian OPCC (September 2018-August 2019) and completed a survey about opioid-related constructs: source of prescriptions, use, storage, disposal, and knowledge about associated harms. Results: Among the 122 study participants, half (58/111, 52.3%) reported that they did not routinely dispose their opioids. The most common method of disposal was by giving them to pharmacists (69/88, 78.4%). Cannabis use (odds ratio [OR]: 3.7, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.1-11.8) and neuropathic medication use (OR: 3.0, 95% CI: 1.2-7.2) were positively associated with routine disposal of opioids. Conversely, reports of an increased amount of opioid use in the past six months were negatively associated with routine disposal of opioids (OR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.16-0.88). Conclusion: The high prevalence of people with life-limiting illnesses who do not routinely dispose their opioids requires increased attention. Interventions, such as education, are needed to reduce medication waste and opioid-related harms.

Oral symptom assessment tools in patients with advanced cancer: a scoping review

PURPOSE

Oral symptoms are common in patients with advanced cancer. The aim of this scoping review was to identify oral symptom assessment tools that have been specifically utilised in patients with "advanced cancer".

METHODS

The review was conducted/reported according to international guidelines for undertaking scoping reviews. PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL were searched for articles involving adult patients with advanced cancer, which involved assessment of ≥ 2 oral symptoms, and which involved patients with > 1 type of cancer.

RESULTS

The review identified four validated symptom assessment scales, including one cancer-specific quality of life scale (EORTC QLQ OH-15), one generic tool for assessing the "social impact" of specific oral problems (OHIP), one cancer-specific generic symptom assessment scale (MSAS), and one cancer-specific oral symptom assessment scale (OSAS).

CONCLUSION

Symptom assessment tools can facilitate good symptom control in clinical practice, and are an integral component of clinical research. The review identified four validated symptom assessment scales that could be utilised to assess oral symptoms in patients with advanced cancer.

The Relevance of State Laws Regulating Opioid Prescribing for People Living With Serious Illness

CONTEXT

Opioids are commonly used to relieve symptoms such as pain and dyspnea in people living with serious illness. In recent years, 36 states enacted limitations for opioid prescriptions to mitigate the impact of the opioid overdose crisis. Palliative care clinicians have been vocal about the unintended consequences of opioid policies, yet little is known about how state policies apply to opioid prescribing in non-cancer-related serious illness.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize current state-level limitations to opioid prescribing and exemptions relevant to people living with non-cancer-related serious illness.

METHODS

Investigators searched publicly available laws ("[state] + opioid legislation") to extract information on opioid prescribing and exemptions. Laws were examined for application to palliative care, hospice, non-cancer-related serious illness, and language about specific symptoms was documented when applicable (e.g., pain, dyspnea).

RESULTS

Most state laws focused on acute pain and/or initial opioid prescriptions. Thirty-three of the thirty-six states with opioid-limiting legislation exempt situations applicable to people living with non-cancer-related serious illness. Three states did not have any exemptions relevant to people living with non-cancer-related serious illness.

DISCUSSION

The results indicate that while most states recognize the importance of timely opioid access for palliation of pain, clinically relevant exemptions for people living with non-cancer-related serious illness may be lacking. When present, language describing palliative care, hospice, and terminal illness exemptions is often broad and may generate confusion between primary and specialty palliative care.

Opioid safety recommendations in adult palliative medicine: a North American Delphi expert consensus

OBJECTIVES

Despite the escalating public health emergency related to opioid-related deaths in Canada and the USA, opioids are essential for palliative care (PC) symptom management.Opioid safety is the prevention, identification and management of opioid-related harms. The Delphi technique was used to develop expert consensus recommendations about how to promote opioid safety in adults receiving PC in Canada and the USA.

METHODS

Through a Delphi process comprised of two rounds, USA and Canadian panellists in PC, addiction and pain medicine developed expert consensus recommendations. Elected Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians (CSPCP) board members then rated how important it is for PC physicians to be aware of each consensus recommendation.They also identified high-priority research areas from the topics that did not achieve consensus in Round 2.

RESULTS

The panellists (Round 1, n=23; Round 2, n=22) developed a total of 130 recommendations from the two rounds about the following six opioid-safety related domains: (1) General principles; (2) Measures for healthcare institution and PC training and clinical programmes; (3) Patient and caregiver assessments; (4) Prescribing practices; (5) Monitoring; and (6) Patients and caregiver education. Fifty-nine topics did not achieve consensus and were deemed potential areas of research. From these results, CSPCP identified 43 high-priority recommendations and 8 high-priority research areas.

CONCLUSIONS

Urgent guidance about opioid safety is needed to address the opioid crisis. These consensus recommendations can promote safer opioid use, while recognising the importance of these medications for PC symptom management.