Search

Larissa J Strath,1 Robert E Sorge,1 Michael A Owens,1 Cesar E Gonzalez,1 Jennifer I Okunbor,1 Dyan M White,1 Jessica S Merlin,2 Burel R Goodin1 1University of Alabama at Birmingham, Department of Psychology, Birmingham, AL, USA; 2University of Pittsburgh, Department of Medicine, Divisions of General Internal Medicine and Infectious Diseases, Pittsburgh, PA, USACorrespondence: Robert E Sorge Tel +1205-934-8563Fax +1205-975-6110Email rsorge@uab.eduBackground: Sex differences in pain sensitivity have been well documented, such that women often report greater sensitivity than men. However, clinical reports highlighting sex differences often equate gender and sex. This is a particularly critical oversight for those whose gender identity is different than their genetic sex.Methods: This preliminary study sets to analyze differences in pain responses between cisgender and transgender individuals living with HIV and chronic pain. A total of 51 African-American participants (24 cisgender men, 20 cisgender women, 7 transgender women) with similar socioeconomic status were recruited. Genetic sex, gender identity, depression and anxiety, pain severity, pain interference and pain-related stigma were recorded. Participants also completed a quantitative sensory testing battery to assess pain in response to noxious heat and mechanical stimuli.Results: Transgender women and cisgender women demonstrated a greater magnitude of temporal summation for heat pain stimuli or mechanical stimuli compared to cisgender men. Specifically, transgender women reported greater mechanical summation than either cisgender women or cisgender men. Transgender women and cisgender women similarly reported greater chronic pain severity compared to cisgender men.Conclusion: These data support the notion that gender identity may play a more significant role in pain sensation than genetic sex. These results further maintain that not only gender identity and genetic sex are distinct variables but that treatment should be based on identity as opposed to genetic sex.Keywords: transgender, gender identity, sex differences, pain, quantitative sensory testing

Importance: Chronic pain is a common condition for which efficacious interventions tailored to highly affected populations are urgently needed. People with HIV have a high prevalence of chronic pain and share phenotypic similarities with other highly affected populations., Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of a behavioral pain self-management intervention called Skills to Manage Pain (STOMP) compared to enhanced usual care (EUC)., Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial included adults with HIV who experienced at least moderate chronic pain for 3 months or more. The study was set at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill large medical centers from August 2019 to September 2022., Intervention: STOMP combined 1-on-1 skill-building sessions delivered by staff interventionists with group sessions co-led by peer interventionists. The EUC control group received the STOMP manual without any 1-on-1 or group instructional sessions., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was pain severity and the impact of pain on function, measured by the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) summary score. The primary a priori hypothesis was that STOMP would be associated with a decreased BPI in people with HIV compared to EUC., Results: Among 407 individuals screened, 278 were randomized to STOMP intervention (n = 139) or EUC control group (n = 139). Among the 278 people with HIV who were randomized, the mean (SD) age was 53.5 (10.0) years; 126 (45.0%) identified as female, 146 (53.0%) identified as male, 6 (2.0%) identified as transgender female. Of the 6 possible 1-on-1 sessions, participants attended a mean (SD) of 2.9 (2.5) sessions. Of the 6 possible group sessions, participants attended a mean (SD) of 2.4 (2.1) sessions. Immediately after the intervention compared to EUC, STOMP was associated with a statistically significant mean difference for the primary outcome, BPI total score: -1.25 points (95% CI, -1.71 to -0.78 points; P < .001). Three months after the intervention, the mean difference in BPI total score remained statistically significant, favoring the STOMP intervention -0.62 points (95% CI, -1.09 to -0.14 points; P = .01)., Conclusion and Relevance: The findings of this randomized clinical trial support the efficaciousness of STOMP as an intervention for chronic pain in people with HIV. Future research will include implementation studies and work to understand the optimal delivery of the intervention., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03692611.

Background: Practice guidelines recommend nonpharmacologic and nonopioid therapies as first-line pain treatment for acute pain. However, little is known about their utilization generally and among individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) for whom opioid and other pharmacologic therapies carry greater risk of harm., Objective: To determine the association between a pre-existing OUD diagnosis and treatment of acute low back pain (aLBP)., Design: Retrospective cohort study using 2016-2019 Medicare data., Participants: Fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries with a new episode of aLBP., Main Measures: The main independent variable was OUD diagnosis measured prior to the first LBP claim (i.e., index date). Using multivariable logistic regressions, we assessed the following outcomes measured within 30 days of the index date: (1) nonpharmacologic therapies (physical therapy and/or chiropractic care), and (2) prescription opioids. Among opioid recipients, we further assessed opioid dose and co-prescription of gabapentin. Analyses were conducted overall and stratified by receipt of physical therapy, chiropractic care, opioid fills, or gabapentin fills during the 6 months before the index date., Key Results: We identified 1,263,188 beneficiaries with aLBP, of whom 3.0% had OUD. Two-thirds (65.8%) did not receive pain treatments of interest at baseline. Overall, nonpharmacologic therapy receipt was less prevalent and opioid and nonopioid pharmacologic therapies were more common among beneficiaries with OUD than those without OUD. Beneficiaries with OUD had lower odds of receiving nonpharmacologic therapies (aOR = 0.62, 99%CI = 0.58-0.65) and higher odds of prescription opioid receipt (aOR = 2.24, 99%CI = 2.17-2.32). OUD also was significantly associated with increased odds of opioid doses ≥ 90 morphine milligram equivalents/day (aOR = 2.43, 99%CI = 2.30-2.56) and co-prescription of gabapentin (aOR = 1.15, 99%CI = 1.09-1.22). Similar associations were observed in stratified groups though magnitudes differed., Conclusions: Medicare beneficiaries with aLBP and OUD underutilized nonpharmacologic pain therapies and commonly received opioids at high doses and with gabapentin. Complementing the promulgation of practice guidelines with implementation science could improve the uptake of evidence-based nonpharmacologic therapies for aLBP., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Society of General Internal Medicine.)

Background: Substance misuse is common among cancer survivors and can negatively impact cancer outcomes., Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study using National Survey on Drug Use and Health data for 2015 to 2020. We included adult respondents with a history of solid tumor cancer. We calculated the weighted prevalence and corresponding SEs (both expressed as percentages) of substance (alcohol, opioid, sedative, stimulant, other) misuse for respondents with any history of solid tumor cancer and, in secondary analyses, respondents diagnosed with cancer in the prior 12 months., Results: The study included 6,101 respondents with any history of cancer, 1,437 diagnosed in the prior 12 months. Alcohol was the most commonly misused substance. The average prevalence of alcohol misuse was 14.4% (SE 0.60%) across cancer types; it was markedly more common among people with a history or cervical (24.2% [3.0%]) or head and neck cancer (27.4% [7.1%]). The next most common form of substance misuse was opioid misuse (average prevalence: 2.7% [0.25%]). As with alcohol misuse, the prevalence of opioid misuse was higher among those with a lifetime history of cervical cancer (5% [1%]) or head and neck cancer (5% [3%]). Results were generally consistent among cancer survivors diagnosed in the prior 12 months., Conclusions: There is a clear opportunity to address substance misuse-particularly alcohol misuse-among cancer survivors. Such efforts should focus on populations with a high prevalence of substance misuse (e.g., cervical and head and neck cancer survivors) and have strong potential to improve cancer-specific and overall health outcomes., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Society of General Internal Medicine.)

Background: States have implemented policies to decrease clinically unnecessary opioid prescribing, but few studies have examined how state policies affect opioid dispensing rate trends for surgical patients., Objective: To examine trends in the perioperative opioid dispensing rates for fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries and the effects of select state policies., Design and Participants: A retrospective cohort study using 2006 to 2018 Medicare claims data for individuals undergoing surgical procedures for which opioid analgesic treatment is common., Exposures: State policies mandating prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP; PDMP policies) use, initial opioid prescription duration limit (duration limit policies), and mandated continuing medical education (CME; CME pain policies) on pain management., Main Measures: Opioid dispensing rates, days' supply, and the daily morphine milligram equivalent dose (MMED)., Key Results: The percentage of Medicare beneficiaries dispensed opioids in the perioperative period increased from 2007 to 2018; MMED and days' supply decreased over the same period, with significant variation by age, sex, and race. None of the three state policies affected the likelihood of Medicare beneficiaries being dispensed perioperative opioids. However, CME pain policies and duration limit policies were associated with decreased days' supply and decreased MMED in the several years following implementation, respectively., Conclusion: While we observed a slight increase in the rate of Medicare beneficiaries dispensed opioids perioperatively and a substantial decrease in MMED and days' supply for those receiving opioids, state policies examined had relatively modest effects on the main measures. Our findings suggest that these state policies may have a limited impact on opioid dispensing for a patient population that is commonly dispensed opioid analgesics to help control surgical pain, and as a result may have little direct effect on clinical outcomes for this population. Changes in opioid dispensing for this population may be the result of broader societal trends than such state policies., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Society of General Internal Medicine.)

Chronic pain is a significant factor for patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) contributing to suboptimal retention in buprenorphine treatment, which is a crucial predictor of long-term health outcomes. This study aims to address the critical need for effective interventions targeting chronic pain management within office-based opioid treatment (OBOT) programs. We are conducting a multisite, hybrid type 1, 2 × 2 factorial randomized clinical trial to determine the effectiveness of 2 novel interventions, pain self-management (PSM) and patient-oriented buprenorphine dosing (POD), to decrease pain interference and improve retention in buprenorphine treatment. PSM, a manualized and customizable approach delivered through individual and peer-led group sessions, aims to decrease pain-related symptoms and quality of life. POD involves split dosing of buprenorphine to extend the duration of analgesia to better match its duration of efficacy at managing OUD symptoms, leading to improved retention in buprenorphine treatment. Eligible participants will be randomized into 1 of 4 groups: (1) PSM + POD, (2) PSM + Standard Buprenorphine Dosing, (3) Usual Care + POD, or (4) Usual Care + Standard Buprenorphine Dosing. Usual Care refers to usual care for chronic pain and Standard Buprenorphine Dosing refers to the participant's current dosing regimen. Secondary objectives encompass overall pain reduction, decreased opioid use, improved pain symptom management, and exploration of implementation strategies. The supplemental approved protocol provides comprehensive insights into the procedures and variables being investigated. As part of the HEAL Initiative ® -funded Integrative Management of Chronic Pain and OUD for Whole Recovery (IMPOWR) network, this study aims to fill gaps in behavioral and medication treatments for individuals with co-occurring chronic pain and OUDs, improving pain management and retention in care. Successful outcomes from this trial may inform future larger trials, offering essential evidence for implementation considerations and reimbursement decisions., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

The Global Task Force on Chronic Pain in HIV published seven research priorities in the field of HIV-associated chronic pain in 2019: (1) causes; (2) management; (3) treatment individualization and integration with addiction treatment; (4) mental and social health factors; (5) prevalence; (6) treatment cost effectiveness; and (7) prevention. The current study used a web-based survey to determine whether the research topics were aligned with the priorities of adults with lived experiences of HIV and chronic pain. We also collected information about respondents' own pain and treatment experiences. We received 311 survey responses from mostly US-based respondents. Most respondents reported longstanding, moderate to severe, multisite pain, commonly accompanied by symptoms of anxiety and/or depression. The median number of pain treatments tried was 10 (IQR = 8, 13), with medications and exercise being the most common modalities, and opioids being viewed as the most helpful. Over 80% of respondents considered all research topics either "extremely important" or "very important". Research topic #2, which focused on optimizing management of pain in people with HIV, was accorded the greatest importance by respondents. These findings suggest good alignment between the priorities of researchers and US-based people with lived experience of HIV-associated chronic pain.

Background: Opioids are a key component of pain management among patients with metastatic cancer pain. However, the evidence base available to guide opioid-related decision-making in individuals with advanced cancer is limited. Patients with advanced cancer or cancer that is unlikely to be cured frequently experience pain. Opioids are a key component of pain management among patients with metastatic cancer pain. Many individuals with advanced cancer are now living long enough to experience opioid-related harm. Emerging evidence from chronic noncancer pain literature suggests that longer-term opioid therapy may have limited benefits for pain and function, and opioid-related harms are also a major concern. However, whether these benefits and harms of opioids apply to patients with cancer-related pain is unknown., Objective: This manuscript outlines the protocol for the "Opioid Therapy for Pain in Individuals With Metastatic Cancer: The Benefits, Harms, and Stakeholder Perspectives (BEST) Study." The study aims to better understand opioid decision-making in patients with advanced cancer, along with opioid benefits and harms, through prospective examination of patients' pain experiences and opioid side effects and understanding the decision-making by patients, care partners, and clinicians., Methods: This is a multicenter, prospective cohort study that aims to enroll 630 patients with advanced cancer, 20 care partners, and 20 clinicians (670 total participants). Patient participants must have an advanced solid cancer diagnosis, defined by the American Cancer Society as cancer that is unlikely to be cured. We will recruit patient participants within 12 weeks after diagnosis so that we can understand opioid benefits, harms, and perspectives on opioid decision-making throughout the course of their advanced cancer (up to 2 years). We will also specifically elicit information regarding long-term opioid use (ie, opioids for ≥90 consecutive days) and exclude patients on long-term opioid therapy before an advanced cancer diagnosis. Lived-experience perspectives related to opioid use in those with advanced cancer will be captured by qualitative interviews with a subset of patients, clinicians, and care partners. Our data collection will be grounded in a behavioral decision research approach that will allow us to develop future interventions to inform opioid-related decision-making for patients with metastatic cancer., Results: Data collection began in October 2022 and is anticipated to end by November 2024., Conclusions: Upon successful execution of our study protocol, we anticipate the development of a comprehensive evidence base on opioid therapy in individuals with advanced cancer guided by the behavioral decision research framework. The information gained from this study will be used to guide interventions to facilitate opioid decisions among patients, clinicians, and care partners. Given the limited evidence base about opioid therapy in people with cancer, we envision this study will have significant real-world implications for cancer-related pain management and opioid-related clinical decision-making., International Registered Report Identifier (irrid): DERR1-10.2196/54953., (©Katie Fitzgerald Jones, Gretchen White, Antonia Bennett, Hailey Bulls, Paula Escott, Sarah Orris, Elizabeth Escott, Stacy Fischer, Megan Hamm, Tamar Krishnamurti, Risa Wong, Thomas W LeBlanc, Jane Liebschutz, Salimah Meghani, Cardinale Smith, Jennifer Temel, Christine Ritchie, Jessica S Merlin. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (https://www.researchprotocols.org), 13.03.2024.)

Nonpharmacologic approaches are recommended as first-line treatment for chronic pain, and their importance is heightened among individuals with co-occurring opioid use disorder (OUD), in whom opioid therapies may be particularly detrimental. Our objectives were to assess the receipt and trajectories of nonpharmacologic pain treatment and determine the association of OUD diagnosis with these trajectories. This retrospective cohort study used Medicare claims data from 2016 to 2018 and applied group-based trajectory models to identify distinct patterns of physical therapy (PT) or chiropractic care treatment over the 12 months following a new episode of chronic low back pain. We used logistic regression models to estimate the association of co-occurring OUD with group membership in PT and chiropractic trajectories. Our sample comprised 607,729 beneficiaries at least 18 years of age, of whom 11.4% had a diagnosis of OUD. The 12-month prevalence of PT and chiropractic treatment receipt was 24.7% and 27.1%, respectively, and lower among Medicare beneficiaries with co-occurring OUD (PT: 14.6%; chiropractic: 6.8%). The final models identified 3 distinct trajectories each for PT (no/little use [76.6% of sample], delayed and increasing use [8.2%], and early and declining use [15.2%]); and chiropractic (no/little use [75.0% of sample], early and declining use [17.3%], and early and sustained use [7.7%]). People with OUD were more likely to belong in trajectories with little/no PT or chiropractic care as compared to other trajectories. The findings indicate that people with co-occurring chronic pain and OUD often do not receive early or any nonpharmacologic pain therapies as recommended by practice guidelines. PERSPECTIVE: PT and chiropractic care use were low overall and even lower among Medicare beneficiaries with co-occurring OUD compared with those without OUD. As updated guidelines on pain management are promulgated, targeted interventions (eg, insurance policy, provider, and patient education) are needed to ensure equitable access to guideline-recommended pain therapies., (Copyright © 2024 United States Association for the Study of Pain, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.

Background: Opioid misuse and substance use disorders (SUDs) including opioid use disorder (OUD) are common and negatively impact quality of life. Hospice clinicians' experiences with these conditions have not been well described. Objectives: We sought to explore hospice clinicians' knowledge, practices, and comfort caring for patients with opioid misuse (e.g., a pattern of unsanctioned opioid use escalation, or concurrent illicit substance use) and SUDs. Design: We recruited hospice clinicians in the United States via national hospice and palliative care organizations to complete an online survey designed by the study authors and pilot tested with an interdisciplinary group of current/former hospice clinicians. Results: One hundred seventy-five clinicians (40% nurses, 40% physicians, 16% nurse practitioners) responded to the survey; most had cared for two or more hospice patients with opioid misuse or SUD in the past month. The majority felt confident identifying opioid misuse (94%) and taking SUD histories (79%). Most (62%) felt it is their role to treat hospice patients for SUD, though 56% lacked comfort in using buprenorphine for OUD treatment. While the majority felt it is their role to treat pain in hospice patients with SUDs (94%) and that hospice can help patients with SUDs (94%), many were not comfortable managing pain in patients taking buprenorphine (45%) or naltrexone (49%) for SUDs. Most felt comfortable managing pain in patients taking methadone for SUD (73%). Conclusions: Opioid misuse and SUD are common in hospice. Though clinicians are comfortable taking relevant histories, they feel less comfortable managing patients' opioid misuse or SUD, or these patients' pain.

Objectives: Many cancer survivors experience chronic pain after completing curative-intent treatment. Based on available data, chronic pain may be undertreated in this context; however, little is known about cancer survivors' experiences with clinical management of chronic pain. The purpose of this study was to better understand cancer survivors' pain management experiences after curative-intent treatment., Methods: We conducted 13 semi-structured interviews with a convenience sample of cancer survivors who had completed treatment for stage I-III breast, head/neck, lung or colorectal cancer. We used a thematic approach to qualitative data analysis., Results: Participants described that chronic pain often goes unrecognized by their providers, potentially due to limitations in how pain is assessed clinically and the tendency of both cancer survivors and providers to minimize or invalidate the pain experience. To improve communication, participants suggested that providers ask more open-ended questions about their pain, help them to establish functional goals, and provide patients with options for pain management., Significance of Results: This study demonstrates the importance of provider-initiated communication around pain management for cancer survivors to make them feel more supported in their care. Communication and shared decision-making interventions may improve cancer survivor-provider communication around chronic pain management, addressing an important gap in survivorship care., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Rates of cigarette smoking in people with HIV (PWH) are two to three times higher than in people without HIV. Nicotine is metabolized by CYP2A6 and the nicotine metabolite ratio (NMR; 3-hydroxycotinine/cotinine) is a measure of nicotine clearance. Higher NMR has been observed in PWH and is associated with lower quit rates. Efavirenz, a mainstay antiretroviral therapy (ART) globally, partially upregulates its own metabolism through CYP2A6. We hypothesized that efavirenz also upregulates nicotine metabolism by CYP2A6, resulting in a higher NMR, and switching to non-efavirenz ART would decrease the NMR, potentially leading to improved quit rates. We compared the NMR during and after efavirenz use among PWH in a longitudinal, multisite cohort. Eligibility criteria included: (i) active cigarette smoking, (ii) ART switched from efavirenz-based to non-efavirenz-based regimen, (iii) plasma available at pre- and post-ART switch, and (iv) viral suppression during study period. Plasma cotinine and 3-hydroxycotinine were measured by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. T-tests compared the NMR on and off efavirenz. Samples were collected between 2010 and 2019 in 72 PWH. The mean NMR difference after switching to a non-efavirenz-based regimen was -0.24 (SD: 0.37, P < 0.001); 44 PWH had at least a 0.1 decrease in NMR. Effect modification by race was present; Black PWH had a larger mean decrease. Our findings suggest that previously observed higher NMR among PWH may be due to direct pharmacologic effects of ART. Assessing the effect of ART on the NMR suggests that avoiding nicotine metabolism inducers could potentially increase quit rates., (© 2023 The Authors. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics © 2023 American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

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., (© 2023 American Cancer Society.)

The way clinicians communicate with parents during pregnancy about congenital heart disease (CHD) can significantly influence parental understanding of and psychological response to the diagnosis. A necessary first step to improving communication used in fetal cardiology consultations is to understand and describe the language currently used, which this paper aims to do. Nineteen initial fetal cardiology consultations with parents were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded by two independent coders. A codebook was inductively developed and applied to all transcripts. The finalized coding was used to characterize fetal cardiologists' language. We identified four discourse styles employed in fetal cardiology consultations: small talk, medical, plain, and person-centered. Plain language was used to define and emphasize the meaning of medical language. Person-centered language was used to emphasize the baby as a whole person. Each consultation included all four discourse styles, with plain and medical used most frequently. Person-centered was used less frequently and mostly occurred near the end of the encounters; whether this is the ideal balance of discourse styles is unknown. Clinicians also used person-centered language (as opposed to disease-centered language), which is recommended by medical societies. Future studies should investigate the ideal balance of discourse styles and the effects of clinician discourse styles on family outcomes, including parents' decision-making, psychological adjustment, and quality of life.

Importance: Nonpharmacologic treatments are important for managing chronic pain among persons with opioid use disorder (OUD), for whom opioid and other pharmacologic therapies may be particularly harmful. Racial and ethnic minority individuals with chronic pain and OUD are vulnerable to suboptimal pain management due to systemic inequities and structural racism, highlighting the need to understand their receipt of guideline-recommended nonpharmacologic pain therapies, including physical therapy (PT) and chiropractic care., Objective: To assess differences across racial and ethnic groups in receipt of PT or chiropractic care for chronic low back pain (CLBP) among persons with comorbid OUD., Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used a 20% random sample of national Medicare administrative data from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2018, to identify fee-for-service community-dwelling beneficiaries with a new episode of CLBP and comorbid OUD. Data were analyzed from March 1, 2022, to July 30, 2023., Exposures: Race and ethnicity as a social construct, categorized as American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, Black or African American, Hispanic, non-Hispanic White, and unknown or other., Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were receipt of PT or chiropractic care within 3 months of CLBP diagnosis. The time (in days) to receiving these treatments was also assessed., Results: Among 69 362 Medicare beneficiaries analyzed, the median age was 60.0 years (IQR, 51.5-68.7 years) and 42 042 (60.6%) were female. A total of 745 beneficiaries (1.1%) were American Indian or Alaska Native; 444 (0.6%), Asian or Pacific Islander; 9822 (14.2%), Black or African American; 4124 (5.9%), Hispanic; 53 377 (77.0%); non-Hispanic White; and 850 (1.2%), other or unknown race. Of all beneficiaries, 7104 (10.2%) received any PT or chiropractic care 3 months after a new CLBP episode. After adjustment, Black or African American (adjusted odds ratio, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.39-0.55) and Hispanic (adjusted odds ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.43-0.67) persons had lower odds of receiving chiropractic care within 3 months of CLBP diagnosis compared with non-Hispanic White persons. Median time to chiropractic care was longest for American Indian or Alaska Native (median, 8.5 days [IQR, 0-44.0 days]) and Black or African American (median, 7.0 days [IQR, 0-42.0 days]) persons and shortest for Asian or Pacific Islander persons (median, 0 days [IQR, 0-6.0 days]). No significant racial and ethnic differences were observed for PT., Conclusions and Relevance: In this retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries with comorbid CLBP and OUD, receipt of PT and chiropractic care was low overall and lower across most racial and ethnic minority groups compared with non-Hispanic White persons. The findings underscore the need to address inequities in guideline-concordant pain management, particularly among Black or African American and Hispanic persons with OUD.

Background and Objectives: Clinical practice guidelines recommend noninvasive nonpharmacological pain therapies; however, reviews that assess the literature pertaining to nonpharmacological pain management among older adults and people with long-term disabilities who are disproportionately affected by pain are lacking. This scoping review aimed to systematically map and characterize the existing studies about the receipt of noninvasive, nonpharmacological pain therapies by Medicare beneficiaries., Research Design and Methods: We conducted a literature search in MEDLINE (PubMed), CINAHL (EBSCO), SocINDEX (EBSCO), Cochrane Library, Web of Science citation indices, and various sources of gray literature. The initial search was conducted on November 2, 2021, and updated on March 9, 2022. Two independent reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and full texts for inclusion and extracted the characteristics of the studies, studied populations, and nonpharmacological pain therapies. Data were summarized using tabular and narrative formats., Results: The final review included 33 studies. Of these, 24 were quantitative, 7 were qualitative, and 2 were mixed-methods studies. Of 32 studies that focused on Medicare beneficiaries, 10 did not specify the Medicare type, and all but one of the remaining studies were restricted to fee-for-service enrollees. Back and neck pain and arthritis were the most commonly studied pain types. Chiropractic care ( n  = 19) and physical therapy ( n  = 17) appeared frequently among included studies. The frequency and/or duration of nonpharmacological treatment were mentioned in 13 studies. Trends in the utilization of nonpharmacological pain therapies were assessed in 6 studies but none of these studies went beyond 2008., Discussion and Implications: This scoping review found that manipulative therapies, mainly chiropractic, have been the most widely studied approaches for nonpharmacological pain management in the Medicare population. The review also identified the need for future research that updates trend data and addresses contemporary issues such as rising Medicare Advantage enrollment and promulgation of practice guidelines for pain management., Competing Interests: Dr. Moyo reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study, serving as a technical expert panelist for Abt Associates, and being a member of a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine ad hoc committee on evaluating the effects of opioids and benzodiazepines on all-cause mortality in Veterans. No other disclosures were reported., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Gerontological Society of America.)

Chronic pain is a common comorbidity in people with HIV (PWH), with prevalence estimates of 25-85%. Research in this area is growing, but significant gaps remain. A Global Task Force of HIV experts was organized to brainstorm a scientific agenda and identify measurement domains critical to advancing research in this field. Experts were identified through literature searches and snowball sampling. Two online questionnaires were developed by Task Force members. Questionnaire 1 asked participants to identify knowledge gaps in the field of HIV and chronic pain and identify measurement domains in studies of chronic pain in PWH. Responses were ranked in order of importance in Questionnaire 2, which was followed by a group discussion. 29 experts completed Questionnaire 1, 25 completed Questionnaire 2, and 21 participated in the group. Many important clinical and research priorities emerged, including the need to examine etiologies of chronic pain in PWH. Pain-related measurement domains were discussed, with a primary focus on domains that could be assessed in a standardized manner across various cohorts that include PWH in different countries. We collaboratively identified clinical and research priorities, as well as gaps in standardization of measurement domains, that can be used to move the field forward.

Background: Legal cannabis is available in more than half of the United States. Health care professionals (HCPs) rarely give recommendations on dosing or safety of cannabis due to limits imposed by policy and lack of knowledge. Customer-facing cannabis dispensary staff, including clinicians (pharmacists, nurses, physician's assistants), communicate these recommendations in the absence of HCP recommendations. Little is known about how dispensary staff approach individuals with complex medical and psychiatric comorbidities. Using responses from a national survey, we describe how cannabis dispensary staff counsel customers with medical and psychiatric comorbidities on cannabis use and examine whether state-specific cannabis policy is associated with advice given to customers., Methods: National, cross-sectional online survey study from February 13, 2020 to October 2, 2020 of dispensary staff at dispensaries that sell delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol containing products. Measures include responses to survey questions about how they approach customers with medical and psychiatric comorbidities; state medicalization score (scale 0-100; higher score indicates more similarity to regulation of traditional pharmacies); legalized adult-use cannabis (yes/no). We conducted multiple mixed effects multivariable logistic regression analyses to understand relationships between state medicalization and dispensary employees' perspectives., Results: Of 434 eligible respondents, most were budtenders (40%) or managers (32%), and a minority were clinicians (18%). State medicalization score was not associated with responses to most survey questions. It was associated with increased odds of encouraging customers with medical comorbidities to inform their traditional HCP of cannabis use (Odds ratio [OR]=1.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0-1.4, p=0.03) and reduced odds of recommending cannabis for individuals with cannabis use disorder (CUD) (OR=0.8, 95% CI 0.7-1.0, p=0.04). Working in a state with legalized adult-use cannabis was associated with recommending traditional health care instead of cannabis in those with serious mental illness (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.1-4.7, p=0.04). Less than half of respondents believed they had encountered CUD (49%), and over a quarter did not believe cannabis is addictive (26%)., Conclusions: When managing cannabis dosing and safety in customers with medical and psychiatric comorbidity, dispensary staff preferred involving individuals' traditional HCPs. Dispensary staff were skeptical of cannabis being addictive. While state regulations of dispensaries may impact the products individuals have access to, they were not associated with recommendations that dispensary staff gave to customers. Alternative explanations for dispensary recommendations may include regional or store-level variation not captured in this analysis., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Therapeutic use of cannabis is common in the United States (up to 18.7% of Americans aged ≥12), and dispensaries in the US are proliferating rapidly. However, the efficacy profile of medical cannabis is unclear, and customers often rely on dispensary staff for purchasing decisions. The objective was to describe cannabis dispensary staff perceptions of medical cannabis benefits and risks, as well as its safety in high-risk populations., Methods: Online Survey study conducted using Qualtrics from February 13, 2020 to October 2, 2020 with a national sample of dispensary staff who reportedinteracting with customers in a cannabis dispensary selling tetrahydrocannabinol-containing products. Participants were queried about benefits ("helpfulness") and risks ("worry") about cannabis for a variety of medical conditions, and safety in older adults and pregnant women on a five-point Likert scale. These results were then collapsed into three categories including "neutral" (3/5). "I don't know" (uncertainty) was a response option for helpfulness and safety., Results: Participants (n = 434) were from 29 states and included patient-facing dispensary staff (40%); managers (32%); pharmacists (13%); and physicians, nurse practitioners, or physician assistants (5%). Over 80% of participants perceived cannabis as helpful for post-traumatic stress disorder (88.7%), epilepsy (85.3%) and cancer (83.4%). Generally, participants were not concerned about potential cannabis risks, including increased use of illicit drugs (76.3%), decreases in intelligence (74.4%), disrupted sleep (71.7%), and new/worsening health problems from medical cannabis use (70.7%). Cannabis was considered safe in older adults by 81.3% of participants, though there was much less consensus on safety in pregnancy., Conclusions: Cannabis dispensary staff generally view medical cannabis as beneficial and low-risk. However, improvements in dispensary staff training, an increased role for certifying clinicians, and interventions to reduce dispensary staff concerns (e.g., cost, judgment) may improve evidence-based staff recommendations to patients seeking medical cannabis., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Dr. Merlin reports grants from Cambia Health Foundation outside the submitted work.

Introduction: Pain treatment guidelines prioritize nonopioid therapies over opioid medications to prevent opioid-related harms. We examined trends in receipt and intensity of nonpharmacologic, nonopioid medication, and opioid therapies among Medicare beneficiaries., Methods: Using a 20% national random sample of Medicare data from 2016 to 2019, we identified fee-for-service beneficiaries with ≥2 diagnoses of back, neck, fibromyalgia, or osteoarthritis/joint pain annually. We excluded beneficiaries with cancer. We calculated annual proportions of beneficiaries who received physical therapy (PT), chiropractic care, gabapentin, and opioids, overall and in demographic, geographic, and clinical subgroups. We estimated the intensity of therapies using the annual number of visitsor prescription fills, prescription days' supply, and opioid dose., Results: During 2016-2019, PT receipt increased (22.8% to 25.5%) and the mean number of visits among recipients of PT went from 12 to 13. Chiropractic receipt (~18%) and mean annual visits (~10) remained unchanged. The prevalence of gabapentin receipt was stable at ~22% and the mean annual number of fills was unchanged though gabapentin days increased slightly. Opioid prescribing decreased (56.7% to 46.5%) and reductions in opioid dose and duration were observed. Opioid receipt was high among beneficiaries who were under 65 years, American Indian/Alaska Native, Black/African American, or had opioid use disorder (OUD), in whom nonpharmacologic therapies were also received the least., Conclusion: Utilization of nonopioid therapies lagged opioids among Medicare beneficiaries with musculoskeletal pain, with limited changes from 2016 to 2019. As opioid prescribing declines and alternative pain therapy receipt remains low, there are potential increasing risks of pain going untreated or undertreated and individuals seeking illicit opioids to alleviate their pain., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest No conflict declared., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Patients with advanced cancer are commonly prescribed opioids, yet patient attitudes about opioid risks (eg, opioid use disorder, or OUD) are understudied. Our objective was to use in-depth qualitative interviews to understand perceptions of opioid prescribing and OUD in patients with advanced, solid-tumor cancers and their support people. We conducted a qualitative study using a rigorous inductive, qualitative descriptive approach to examine attitudes about OUD in patients with advanced cancer (n = 20) and support providers (n = 11). Patients with cancer hold 2 seemingly distinct views: prescription opioids are addictive, yet OUD cannot happen to me or my loved one. Participants described general concerns about the addictive nature of prescription opioids ("My biggest concern… would just be the risk of getting addicted to the medication or even like, overdosing it"), while separating cancer pain management from OUD when considering prescription opioid risks and benefits ("They need to make sure they get the right ones, when they're taking it away from you."). Finally, participants identified personal characteristics and behaviors that they felt were protective against developing OUD (commonly control, willpower, and responsibility). This rigorous qualitative study demonstrates that patients with advanced cancer and their support people simultaneously hold concerns about the addictive nature of prescription opioids, while distancing from perceptions of OUD risks when using opioids for cancer pain management. Given high rates of opioid exposure during advanced cancer treatment, it is important to explore opportunities to promote a balanced understanding of prescription opioid use and OUD risks in this population. PERSPECTIVE: Though prescription opioids carry risk of OUD, there is little data to help guide patients with advanced cancer. Findings suggest that there is a need to develop new, innovative strategies to promote effective pain management and minimize opioid risks in this complex population., (Copyright © 2023 United States Association for the Study of Pain, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: This scoping review aims to describe factors in the existing literature that may inform opioid-prescribing decisions for patients with a past or present history of cancer and past or present substance misuse or substance use disorder., Introduction: Opioids and opioid-related decisions are critical components of cancer care. Most individuals with cancer will experience pain during cancer care, and over half of patients will receive an opioid prescription. Opioid-prescribing decisions require weighing the benefits and harms. The presence of substance misuse or substance use disorder may elevate the risk of opioid-related harms, but there is a lack of consensus on managing patients at this intersection., Inclusion Criteria: This review will consider studies that include adult patients with a past or present history of cancer who also have pain and current or historical substance misuse or substance use disorder. The pain may be cancer-related or non-cancer-related. Studies of patients with all types of cancer will be eligible for inclusion, with the exception of non-melanoma skin cancers. Eligible studies will explore factors that inform opioid-prescribing decisions in this patient population., Methods: The review will be conducted according to JBI methodology for scoping reviews. Studies written in English since database inception will be included. The databases to be searched include MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), Embase, APA PsycINFO, and Google Scholar. Eligible studies will undergo data extraction by 2 independent reviewers using a data extraction tool created by the authors. A narrative summary will describe study characteristics, population details, and strategies used to determine appropriate pain management in the patient population., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 JBI.)

Purpose: Among cancer survivors who have completed curative-intent treatment, the high prevalence and adverse consequences of chronic pain are well documented. Yet, research on clinicians' experiences with and perspectives on managing chronic pain among cancer survivors is critically lacking., Methods: We conducted semistructured interviews with 17 clinicians (six oncology, three palliative care, and eight primary care) affiliated with an academic medical center. Interview questions addressed clinicians' experiences with and perspectives on managing chronic pain (with or without opioid therapy) during the transition from active treatment to survivorship. A multidisciplinary team conducted content analysis of interview transcripts to identify and refine themes related to current practices and challenges in managing chronic pain in this context., Results: Overall, clinicians perceived chronic pain to be relatively uncommon among cancer survivors. Identified challenges included a lack of clarity about which clinician (or clinicians) are best positioned to manage chronic pain among cancer survivors, and (relatedly) complexities introduced by long-term opioid management, with many clinicians describing this practice as outside their skill set. Additionally, although most clinicians recognized chronic pain as a biopsychosocial phenomenon, they described challenges with effectively managing psychosocial stressors, including difficulty accessing mental or behavioral health services for cancer survivors., Conclusion: Discovered challenges highlight unmet needs related to cancer survivor-clinician communication about chronic pain and the absence of a chronic pain management home for cancer survivors, including those requiring long-term opioid therapy. Research evaluating routine pain monitoring and accessible, tailored models of multimodal pain care in survivorship may help to address these challenges.

Objective: Pain is experienced by most patients with cancer and opioids are a cornerstone of management. Our objectives were (1) to identify patterns or trajectories of long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) and their correlates among patients with and without cancer and (2) to assess the association between trajectories and risk for opioid overdose, considering the potential moderating role of cancer., Methods and Analysis: We conducted a retrospective cohort study among individuals in the US Veterans Health Administration (VHA) database with incident LTOT with and without cancer (N=44,351; N=285,772, respectively) between 2010-2017. We investigated the relationship between LTOT trajectory and all International Classification of Diseases-9 and 10-defined accidental and intentional opioid-related overdoses., Results: Trajectories of opioid receipt observed in patients without cancer and replicated in patients with cancer were: low-dose/stable trend, low-dose/de-escalating trend, moderate-dose/stable trend, moderate-dose/escalating with quadratic downturn trend, and high-dose/escalating with quadratic downturn trend. Time to first overdose was significantly predicted by higher-dose and escalating trajectories; the two low-dose trajectories conferred similar, lower risk. Conditional hazard ratios (99% CI) for the moderate-dose, moderate-dose/escalating with quadratic downturn and high-dose/escalating with quadratic downturn trends were 1·84 (1·18, 2·85), 2·56 (1·54, 4·25), and 2·41 (1·37, 4·26), respectively. Effects of trajectories on time to overdose did not differ by presence of cancer; inferences were replicated when restricting to patients with stage 3/4 cancer., Conclusion: Patients with cancer face opioid overdose risks like patients without cancer. Future studies should seek to expand and address our knowledge about opioid risk in cancer patients., Trial Registration: None., Competing Interests: Dr. Merlin is supported by a grant from the Cambia Health Foundation.

Pain management in palliative care (PC) is becoming more complex as patients survive longer with life-limiting illnesses and population-wide trends involving opioid misuse become more common in serious illness. Buprenorphine, a generally safe partial mu-opioid receptor agonist, has been shown to be effective for both pain management and opioid use disorder. It is critical that PC clinicians become comfortable with indications for its use, strategies for initiation while understanding risks and benefits. This article, written by a team of PC and addiction-trained specialists, including physicians, nurse practitioners, social workers, and a pharmacist, offers 10 tips to demystify buprenorphine use in serious illness.

Background: Precision implementation science requires methods to evaluate and select implementation strategies. This study developed and evaluated a novel measure of concordance between current and preferred dissemination channels (DC) and implementation strategies (IS) to guide efforts to improve the adoption of evidence-based management strategies for chronic pain., Methods: We conducted a one-time electronic survey of Pennsylvania primary care practitioners (PCPs) about current vs. preferred chronic pain management DC and IS use. Survey items were selected based on preliminary data, the Model for Dissemination of Research, and the Evidence-Based Recommendations for Implementing Change taxonomy of implementation strategies. We used Cohen's kappa (κ) to assess the agreement between participant-level current and preferred DC/IS. We calculated % preferred minus % experienced for each DC/IS and assessed the equality of proportions to determine whether this difference significantly departed from zero. We categorized DC and IS based on the degree of use and preference, to evaluate alignment., Results: The current sample included 101 Pennsylvania PCPs primarily in urban (94.06%), non-academic (90.10%) settings who self-identified as mostly female (66.34%) and white (85.15%). The greatest difference between preferred and experienced DCs, or "need," was identified by participants as workshops, clinical experts, seminars, and researchers. Similarly, participants reported the greatest IS gaps as multidisciplinary chronic pain workgroups, targeted support for clinicians, and a chronic pain clinical champion. Participating PCPs had moderate DC concordance (kappa = 0.45, 95% CI = 0.38-0.52) and low IS concordance (kappa = 0.18, 95% CI = 0.13-0.23). DC and IS concordance were both greater than that expected by chance. We further identified well-aligned DC and IS, including professional organizations, briefs, and guidelines., Conclusion: We identified a novel implementer-reported outcome of dissemination channel and implementation strategy concordance that allows implementation scientists to quantify the magnitude of the gap between the current and preferred experience of implementers. This quantitative measure can help with the selection and evaluation of dissemination channels and implementation strategies. Future research should leverage this measure to understand the degree to which preference concordance influences clinical outcomes and performance., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Cancer is a major reason for concurrent prescription of opioids with other sedating medications-particularly benzodiazepines and gabapentinoids-yet population-based assessments of the extent and predictors of concurrent prescribing among clinically and demographically diverse patients with cancer are lacking., Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with non-metastatic cancer using North Carolina cancer registry data linked with Medicare and private insurance claims (2013-2016). We used modified Poisson regression to assess associations of patient characteristic with adjusted relative risk (aRR) of new concurrent prescribing of opioids with benzodiazepines or gabapentinoids after diagnosis., Results: Overall, 15% of patients were concurrently prescribed opioids with benzodiazepines or gabapentinoids. Characteristics independently associated with an increased risk of concurrent prescribing included cancer type (e.g., aRR cervical vs. colorectal cancer: 1.55, 95% CI: 1.12-2.14); prior use of opioids (aRR: 2.43, 95% CI:2.21-2.67), benzodiazepines (aRR: 4.08, 95% CI: 3.72-4.48), or gabapentinoids (3.82, 95% CI: 3.31-4.39), and premorbid mental health conditions, including substance use disorder (aRR: 1.27, 95% CI: 1.05-1.54). Black and Hispanic patients were less likely to experience concurrent prescribing (aRR, Black vs. White: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.15-0.83; aRR, Hispanic vs. White: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.66-0.85)., Conclusion: Approximately 1 in 7 patients with cancer was concurrently prescribed opioids with other sedating medications. Associations between patient characteristics and risk of concurrent prescribing highlight predictors of concurrent prescribing and suggest a rationale for systematic assessment of substance use history at diagnosis. Future research could explore inequitable pain and symptom management and investigate risk of adverse medication-related events., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Although the benefits of smoking cessation following a cancer diagnosis have been well-established, up to 50% of cancer patients continue to smoke. Continued smoking through oncology treatment leads to increased risk of adverse events including reduced effectiveness of treatment, recurrence of additional malignancies, and reduced survival rates. Upon the cancer diagnosis, oncology healthcare providers become the primary trusted source of information and support, which represents a great opportunity to assist these patients to quit smoking. However, it remains unclear how oncology healthcare providers can best address smoking cessation from a patient-centered perspective. The present study surveyed oncology patients from Birmingham, AL, classified as either former (n = 174) or current smokers (n = 81) to identify their perceptions regarding the role of oncology healthcare providers in their smoking cessation efforts. Current smokers were more likely to be younger, received their cancer diagnosis within the past 3 years, and have a cancer diagnosis with high smoking-related public awareness (i.e., head, neck, or lung) compared to former smokers. Additionally, 81% of current smokers reported experiencing smoking cessation discussions with their oncology healthcare providers with the most prominent recommendations being use of nicotine replacement therapies (46.9%) and medication (35.8%). These smoking cessation experiences align with patient preferences. However, despite the frequency of smoking cessation discussions, current smokers demonstrated an ambivalence in understanding the risks of continued smoking during their medical treatment. Overall, this study highlights the important role of oncology healthcare providers on implementing smoking cessation intervention for their patients who continue to smoke., (© 2021. American Association for Cancer Education.)

Purpose: Stigma surrounding prescription opioids, or opioid stigma, is increasingly recognized as a barrier to effective and guideline-concordant cancer pain management. Patients with advanced cancer report high rates of pain and prescription opioid exposure, yet little is known about how opioid stigma may manifest in this population., Methods: We conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with 20 patients with advanced cancer and 11 support providers between March 2020, and May 2021. We took a rigorous inductive, qualitative descriptive approach to characterize how opioid stigma manifests in the lives of patients with advanced cancer., Results: Patients and their support providers described three primary manifestations of opioid stigma: (1) direct experiences with opioid stigma and discrimination in health care settings (eg, negative, stigmatizing interactions in pharmacies or a pain clinic); (2) concerns about opioid stigma affecting patient care in the future, or anticipated stigma; and (3) opioid-restricting attitudes and behaviors that may reflect internalized stigma and fear of addiction (eg, feelings of guilt)., Conclusion: This qualitative study advances our understanding of opioid stigma manifestations in patients with advanced cancer, as well as coping strategies that patients may use to alleviate their unease (eg, minimizing prescription opioid use, changing clinicians, and distancing from perceptions of addiction). In recognition of the costs of undermanaged cancer pain, it is important to consider innovative treatment strategies to address opioid stigma and improve pain management for patients with advanced cancer. Future research should examine opportunities to build an effective, multilevel opioid stigma intervention targeting patients, clinicians, and health care systems., Competing Interests: Megan HammEmployment: Arcadia Health Solutions (I) Antoinette WozniakConsulting or Advisory Role: BeyondSpring Pharmaceuticals, Epic, HUYA Bioscience International, Odonate Therapeutics, Janssen Oncology, GlaxoSmithKline, Regeneron, Novocure, OncLive/MJH Life Sciences, Premier, Inc, oncoboard, BeiGene, Incyte, Daiichi Sankyo/Lilly, kneis, Genentech Jessica S. MerlinResearch Funding: Cambia Health Foundation Yael SchenkerHonoraria: UpToDateNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Objective: This objective of this review is to describe the scope of the literature on the access to and use of nonpharmacologic therapies to manage chronic pain among people with disabilities and older adults., Introduction: Clinical guidelines recommend nonpharmacologic interventions as first-line therapy for chronic pain management. The importance of nonpharmacologic management is magnified in populations with a high pain burden and multiple chronic conditions, such as people living with a disability and/or older adults, many of whom are enrolled in Medicare. Understanding the utilization of nonpharmacologic therapies for pain is critical to guide effective pain management delivery and policy., Inclusion Criteria: This scoping review will consider studies of Medicare beneficiaries and Medicare-eligible individuals who have chronic pain. Noninvasive and nonpharmacologic treatments for pain identified in clinical guidelines will be included. We will exclude studies exclusively focused on acute pain, cancer pain, palliative care and hospice settings, cannabis-based treatment, and pharmacologic therapies. Studies conducted outside the United States will be excluded., Methods: The proposed scoping review will be conducted in accordance with JBI methodology. The search strategy has been developed in consultation with a public health librarian and will be carried out in MEDLINE, CINAHL, and SocINDEX, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. The search will be limited to results published in English since January 1, 1990. Two independent reviewers will screen all titles and abstracts and then full-text articles. Data will be extracted and summarized in diagrammatic, tabular, and narrative formats., Scoping Review Registration: Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/h7bwc/ )., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (COPYRIGHT © 2022 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of JBI.)

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., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Context: Hospice and palliative care (HPC) clinicians increasingly care for patients with concurrent painful serious illness and opioid use disorder (OUD) or opioid misuse; however, only a minority of HPC clinicians have an X-waiver license or actively use it to prescribe buprenorphine as medication treatment for OUD., Objectives: To understand barriers for HPC clinicians to obtaining an X-waiver and prescribing buprenorphine as medication treatment for OUD., Methods: We performed content analysis on 100 survey responses from members of the national Buprenorphine Peer Support Network, a group of HPC clinicians interested in buprenorphine, on X-waiver status, barriers to obtaining an X-waiver, and barriers to active prescribing., Results: Of 100 HPC clinicians surveyed, only 26 of 57 HPC clinicians with X-waivers had ever prescribed. Prominent barriers included discomfort managing concurrent pain, buprenorphine, and OUD; concerns about impacts on practice; unsupportive practice culture; insufficient practice support; patient facing challenges; and cumbersome regulatory policies., Conclusion: Despite HPC clinicians' interest in buprenorphine prescribing for OUD, several steps are needed to facilitate the practice, including clinician education tailored to pain and to clinical challenges faced by HPC clinicians, mentorship on buprenorphine use, and cultural and practice changes to dismantle systemic stigma towards addiction. We propose evidence-based steps derived from our survey findings that individual clinicians, HPC leaders, and national HPC organizations can take to improve care for patients with painful serious illness and OUD., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Given limited evidence on opioid prescribing among patients receiving treatment for cancer during the ongoing opioid epidemic, our objective was to assess predictors of and trends in opioid receipt during cancer treatment, including how patterns differ by type of cancer., Methods: Using cancer registry data, we identified patients with a first lifetime primary diagnosis of breast, colorectal, or lung cancer from 2013 to 2017 who underwent treatment within a large cancer center network. Cancer registry data were linked to electronic health record information on opioid prescriptions. We examined predictors of and trends in receipt of any opioid prescription within 12 months of cancer diagnosis., Results: The percentage of patients receiving opioids varied by cancer type: breast cancer, 35% (1,996/5,649); colorectal, 37% (776/2,083); lung, 47% (1,259/2,654). In multivariable analysis, opioid use in the year before cancer diagnosis was the factor most strongly associated with receipt of opioids after cancer diagnosis, with 4.90 (95% CI, 4.10-5.86), 5.09 (95% CI, 3.88-6.69), and 3.31 (95% CI, 2.68-4.10) higher odds for breast, colorectal, and lung cancers, respectively. We did not observe a consistent decline in opioid prescribing over time, and trends differed by cancer type., Conclusions: Our findings suggest that prescription of opioids to patients with cancer varies by cancer type and other factors. In particular, patients are more likely to receive opioids after cancer diagnosis if they were previously exposed before diagnosis, suggesting that pain among patients with cancer may commonly include non-cancer-related pain. Heterogeneity and complexity among patients with cancer must be accounted for in developing policies and guidelines aimed at addressing pain management while minimizing the risk of opioid misuse.

Racial disparities, including decreased hospice utilization, lower quality symptom management, and poor-quality end-of-life care have been well documented in Black Americans. Improving health equity and access to high-quality serious illness care is a national palliative care (PC) priority. Accomplishing these goals requires clinician reflection, engagement, and large-scale change in clinical practice and health-related policies. In this article, we provide an overview of key concepts that underpin racism in health care, discuss common serious illness disparities in Black Americans, and propose steps to promote the delivery of antiracist PC.

Abstract: Millions of patients with cancer pain are treated with prescription opioids each year. However, efforts to mitigate the ongoing opioid crisis result in unintended consequences with opioid pain management, including opioid stigma. Emerging research indicates that opioid stigma is problematic in patients with cancer, but few studies have examined contributors to and impacts of opioid stigma in this population. To guide future research in this area, we propose a conceptual framework-the opioid stigma framework (OSF)-with which to understand and improve opioid stigma in patients with cancer pain. Development of the OSF was guided by a literature review of stigma in health-related conditions, adaptation of the existing Health Stigma and Discrimination Framework, a topical review of challenges related to opioid cancer pain management, and author expertise in cancer, pain, and opioid prescribing. The proposed OSF highlights 5 domains: (1) contributors to opioid stigma, or factors that increase the likelihood that a patient will experience opioid stigma; (2) intersecting stigmas, or the convergence of multiple stigmatized identities within a patient; (3) stigma manifestations, or the ways opioid stigma is manifested in patients, clinicians, and the community; (4) proximal outcomes, or the immediate consequences of opioid stigma in patients; and (5) long-term impacts in patients. The OSF provides 2 main avenues to facilitate future research: (1) providing a framework to explore the mechanisms that underlie opioid stigma and its impact on cancer pain management and (2) supporting the development of targeted, tailored interventions to eliminate opioid stigma., (Copyright © 2021 International Association for the Study of Pain.)

Background: The average length of buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder is less than 6 months., Objective: We conducted a systematic review to determine what factors were associated with longer retention in buprenorphine treatment., Design: We searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in February 2018. Articles were restricted to randomized controlled trials on human subjects, written in English, which contained ≥ 24 weeks of objective data on retention in buprenorphine treatment., Main Measures: We assessed whether dose of buprenorphine, treatment setting, or co-administration of behavioral therapy was associated with retention rates., Key Results: Over 14,000 articles were identified. Thirteen articles (describing 9 studies) met inclusion criteria. Measures of retention varied widely. Three studies compared doses of buprenorphine between 1 and 8 mg and showed significantly higher rates of retention with higher doses (p values < 0.01). All other studies utilized buprenorphine doses between 8 and 24 mg daily, without comparison. No study found a significant difference in retention between buprenorphine alone and buprenorphine plus behavioral therapy (p values > 0.05). Initiating buprenorphine while hospitalized or within criminal justice settings prior to outpatient treatment programs was significantly associated with retention in buprenorphine treatment (p values < 0.01 respectively)., Conclusions: Setting of treatment initiation and a higher buprenorphine dose are associated with improved long-term treatment retention. More objective data on buprenorphine treatment programs are needed, including a standardized approach to defining retention in buprenorphine treatment programs., Registration: This review was registered with PROSPERO (#CRD42019120336) in March 2019., (© 2021. Society of General Internal Medicine.)

Background: Persons with HIV (PWH) and opioid use disorder (OUD) can have poor health outcomes. We assessed whether intensity of behavioral treatment for OUD (BOUD) with and without medication for OUD (MOUD) is associated with improved HIV clinical outcomes., Methods: We used Veterans Aging Cohort Study (VACS) data from 2008 to 2017 to identify PWH and OUD with ≥1 BOUD episode. We assessed BOUD intensity and ≥6 months of MOUD (methadone or buprenorphine) receipt during the 12 months after BOUD initiation. Linear regression models assessed the association of BOUD intensity and MOUD receipt with pre-post changes in log viral load (VL), CD4 cell count, VACS Index 2.0, antiretroviral treatment (ART) initiation, and ART adherence., Results: Among 2419 PWH who initiated BOUD, we identified five distinct BOUD intensity trajectories: single visit (39% of sample); low-intensity, not sustained (37%); high-intensity, not sustained (9%); low-intensity, sustained (11%); and high-intensity, sustained (5%). MOUD receipt was low (17%). Among 709 PWH not on ART at the start of BOUD, ART initiation increased with increased BOUD intensity (p < 0.01). Among 1401 PWH on ART at the start of BOUD, ART adherence improved more in higher-intensity BOUD groups (p < 0.01). VL, CD4 count and VACS Index 2.0 did not differ by BOUD or ≥6 months of MOUD treatment., Conclusion: Among PWH and OUD who initiated BOUD, higher intensity BOUD was associated with improved ART initiation and adherence, but neither BOUD alone nor BOUD plus ≥6 months MOUD was associated with improvements in VL, CD4 count or VACS Index 2.0., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Rates of chronic pain and cigarette smoking are each substantially higher among people living with HIV (PLWH) than in the general population. The goal of these analyses was to examine the prevalence and impact of comorbid chronic pain and cigarette smoking among PLWH. Participants included 3289 PLWH (83% male) who were recruited from five HIV clinics. As expected, the prevalence of smoking was higher among PLWH with chronic pain (41.9%), than PLWH without chronic pain (26.6%, p  < .0001), and the prevalence of chronic pain was higher among current smokers (32.9%), than among former (23.6%) or never (17%) smokers ( p s < .0001). PLWH who endorsed comorbid chronic pain and smoking (vs. nonsmokers without chronic pain) were more likely to report cocaine/crack and cannabis use, be prescribed long-term opioid therapy, and have virologic failure, even after controlling for relevant sociodemographic and substance-related variables ( p s < .05). These results contribute to a growing empirical literature indicating that chronic pain and cigarette smoking frequently co-occur, and extend this work to a large sample of PLWH. Indeed, PLWH may benefit from interventions that are tailored to address bidirectional pain-smoking effects in the context of HIV.

Importance: Opioid use disorder (OUD) is an important comorbidity in individuals with advanced cancer, in whom pain is common. Full-agonist opioid medications are the cornerstone of cancer pain management, but the existing literature does not address how to manage cancer pain in patients with OUD., Objective: To conduct an expert panel to develop consensus on the appropriateness of management of cancer pain in individuals with co-occurring advanced cancer and OUD., Evidence Review: A 3-round modified Delphi process was completed from August to October 2020 with 2 cases: patient with advanced cancer, pain, and OUD treated with buprenorphine-naloxone or methadone. Participants rated management strategies in round 1, discussed results in round 2, and provided final responses in round 3. ExpertLens, an online approach to conducting modified Delphi panels, was used. Participants were experts in palliative care, addiction, or both, recruited by email from palliative care and addiction-focused professional groups, lists from prior studies, and snowball sampling. Data analysis was performed from November 2020 to July 2021., Findings: Of 120 experts (median age, 40-49 years), most were White (78 participants [94%]), female (74 participants [62%]), and held MD or DO degrees (115 participants [96%]); 84 (70%) participated in all rounds. For a patient with OUD taking buprenorphine-naloxone, it was deemed appropriate to continue buprenorphine-naloxone with thrice-daily dosing. Continuing buprenorphine-naloxone and adding a full-agonist opioid was deemed to be appropriate for patients with a prognosis of weeks to months and of uncertain appropriateness for patients with a prognosis of months to years. For a patient with OUD taking methadone dispensed at a methadone clinic, it was deemed appropriate to take over prescribing and dose twice or thrice daily. Continuing methadone daily while adding another full-agonist opioid was deemed appropriate for patients with a prognosis of weeks to months and of uncertain appropriateness for those with a prognosis of months to years., Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this qualitative study provide urgently needed, consensus-based guidance for clinicians and highlight critical research and policy gaps needed to facilitate implementation.