s The Journal of Pain S7 (124) Adherence and usability of a wrist-worn device for recording pain scores B Hardy, J Jasko, J Powers, W Booth, B Peterson, and M Reed; Philips Home Healthcare Solutions, Monroeville, PA A recording of patient pain perception is required for proper assessment of pain therapies. A wrist-worn device for collecting patient reported pain scores could be more convenient than paper diaries or electronic tablets that could be misplaced, but the usability and adherence of a wrist worn device needs validation. Twenty subjects from a pain clinic (54 6 7 yo, 60% female) were asked to wear a prototype of a new wrist-worn actigraphy device for 5 days. The device allowed the subjects to enter two scores, either spontaneously or in response to an alarm, several times per day. No entry after an alarm was followed by a reminder 5 minutes later. They were asked to enter scores for pain (0-10) and fatigue levels (0-10) when the device sounded/vibrated 4 times each day and to also record the same value in a paper diary. The subjects entered pain and fatigue scores on cue 90% of the time and with the reminder 5% of the time for a total of 95% adherence. Data was available from at least 3 of the 4 daily time points every day for all subjects. The electronic recordings agreed with the paper recording 80% of the time which suggests that 20% of the paper entries may not have been recorded at the proper time. Subjects gave favorable scores for device readability (90-95%), and comfort (90%). The device scores demonstrated the expected increase in pain and fatigue during the course of the day (Murphy, Arthritis & Rheum., 59: 849, 2008). This wrist-worn device for recording pain and fatigue was well accepted by pain patients and, with the help of the electronic reminder, delivered excellent adherence. This research was sponsored by Philips Home Healthcare Solutions. (125) Stratifying Patient Opioid Risk Tool (ORT) scores using genetic predisposition of dopaminergic imbalances (S.P.O.R.T. Study) T Onojighofia, B Akindele, B Meshkin, D Schwarz, S Chang, J Hubbard, M Zoleikhaeian, and M Hua; Proove Biosciences Inc., Fulton, MD Opioid Risk Tool (ORT) is one of several subjective assessments used to stratify patient risk for misuse of opioids. Unlike ORT, genetic testing is not contingent upon the honesty of patient responses. The American Society of Addiction Medicine suggests that genetic factors are involved in half of substance abuse. The objective of this study is to evaluate the relationship between the Opioid Risk Tool (ORT) and a panel of single nucleotide polymorphisms in themesolimbic dopamine system to stratify patients between high, moderate, and low risk to misuse opioid pain medications. The study evaluated 290 subjects across 15 clinical research sites. Patients completed the ORT questionnaire, and were genotyped with TaqMan single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) assays using the proprietary Proove Narcotic Risk Genetics Profile Test (Proove Biosciences, Inc., Irvine, California). Based on a stratification of low, moderate, and high risk, comparisons between ORTand Proove test was made to determine correlation and association. In the results, the average Dependence Risk Index scores (DRI) for high risk ORT scores was 20 (n=47) compared to 19 for low risk ORT scores (n=182). However, when looking at individual SNPs, a genotype of 4 homozygous mutations was found to stratify between high, moderate, and low risk for opioid abuse, when correlated to the ORT. Homozygous mutations in the dopamine d2 receptor A1 allele (23.91% v. 11.48%, p C (25.53% v. 13.66%, (p 5 apnea/hypopnea events/hour. Data show that, as expected, opioid use in the GA was more prevalent than in the SA group (73% vs. 33% of the patients). Interestingly, the total opioid dose in these groups was similar (5.6 61.2 vs. 5.1 61.4, p>0.1) and, surprisingly, the rate of OIRD in the GA group was significantly lower than in the SA group (0/8 vs. 5/17, p < 0.05). Similar disparity was also observed in the patients who received no opioids: 0% of patients in the GA group had POA compared to 24% of patients in the SA group. Using the noninvasive, real-time, quantitative MV measurements provided by the RVM we quantified two known side-effects of opioids: OIRD and POA in four different anesthesia cohorts. Our results suggest that while patients receiving SA and regional block may receive fewer opioids, they are not at lower risk for OIRD and POA. This suggests that careful monitoring of ventilation in all post-operative patients should be considered.