Search

Context: Limited access to opioids for patients with cancer has been reported as a potential unintended consequence of recent regulations restricting opioid use and prescribing practices. To our knowledge, there are a limited number of peer-reviewed studies that evaluate the perceived difficulties of the patients with cancer when filling their opioid prescription. To understand these difficulties, we surveyed patients receiving opioids in our outpatient supportive care center (SCC)., Objectives: The primary objective of this study was to evaluate cancer patients' perceptions of overall difficulties when filling their opioid prescription. Secondary objectives included determining associations between patient characteristics and difficulty and comparing difficulty between filling opioid and nonopioid prescriptions., Methods: Patients with cancer receiving opioids that had been seen two times or more at our SCC were asked to complete a survey. The information collected included patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and patients' experiences filling their opioid prescription., Results: The patients' median age was 60 years; 54% were female and 69% were white. Forty-four patients (32%) reported that they have experienced difficulty filling their opioid prescription. More than 25% of those 44 patients perceived difficulty from interactions with the pharmacy and/or pharmacist. Forty-six patients (33%) reported more difficulty filling their opioid prescriptions than filling their nonopioid prescriptions., Conclusion: This study provides evidence that patients with cancer visiting our SCC perceived difficulties obtaining their opioid prescriptions. The results suggest that negative interactions with the pharmacy and/or pharmacist contribute to their perceived difficulty. Additional research is needed to further characterize the contributors of the difficulties patients with cancer face in filling their opioid prescriptions., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Context: Low-income patients face barriers to palliative care access, which might negatively influence symptom management and advanced care planning., Objective: Our aim was to compare time of referral and characteristics (level of symptom distress) among uninsured (indigent), low-insured (Medicaid), and insured patients presenting to our supportive care center (SCC)., Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of randomly selected 100 indigent, 100 Medicaid, and 300 insured outpatients referred during the same five-year period. We reviewed demographic and clinical characteristics including date of diagnosis of advanced cancer and of first visit to SCC, symptom assessment (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System), type and dose of opioid medication, number of total outpatient visits, and date of last contact with palliative care team., Results: Among 482 evaluable patients, indigent, Medicaid, and insured patients, respectively, had mean (SD) ages of 48 (11), 50 (12), and 63 (13) years (P < 0.001); Edmonton Symptom Assessment System pain scores at first visit of 6.7 (2.5), 5.6 (3.2), and 4.9 (3.2) (P < 0.001); nonwhite race in 60%, 49%, and 25% of cases (P < 0.001); unmarried status in 68%, 64%, and 33% of cases (P < 0.001), while 63%, 87%, and 54% of patients (P < 0.001) were on opioids with median number of encounters per month of 0.6, 0.8, and 0.5 (P = 0.001). Median survival (95% CI) from first visit to last contact was 4.6 (2.8-6.2), 5.4 (3.5-7), and 5.6 (4.7-7.3) months (P = 0.036)., Conclusion: Patients with limited or no insurance had significantly higher pain and were more frequently on opioids, younger, nonwhite, and not married. They required higher number of SCC follow-up visits. Insurance status did not affect timing of SCC referral or follow-ups at our cancer center., (Copyright © 2017 American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Context: Cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES) is a safe modulation of brain activity for treating depression, anxiety, insomnia, and pain. However, there are no published studies in patients with advanced cancer (ACPs)., Objectives: The aim of the study was to determine the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of a four-week CES intervention on depression, anxiety, sleep disturbance, and pain scores. Concurrent salivary biomarker studies were conducted., Methods: In this one group open label pre- and post-intervention study with a four-week CES intervention, ACPs with one or more of four moderate intensity (≥3/10) Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) symptoms (depression, anxiety, sleep disturbance, and pain) were eligible. Adherence (0%-100%), satisfaction rates (0-10), and safety were assessed. ESAS, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, Brief Pain Inventory, and salivary levels (cortisol, alpha amylase, C-reactive protein, and interleukin-1β, and interleukin-6) were assessed from baseline to Week 4., Results: Thirty-three of 36 patients (92%) completed the CES. Median (interquartile range) adherence CES use and satisfaction scores were 93% (89-100) and 10% (9-10), respectively, and the adherence criteria was met in the study. CES use was safe (no Grade 3 or higher adverse events). HADS anxiety (P < 0.001), HADS depression (P = 0.024), ESAS anxiety (P = 0.001), ESAS depression (P = 0.025), Brief Pain Inventory pain (P = 0.013), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index daytime dysfunction (P = 0.002), and medication use (P = 0.006) scores improved after four-week CES treatment., Conclusion: In this preliminary study, we found that the use of CES was safe and feasible in ACP. The use of CES was associated with significant improvement of depression, anxiety, pain, and sleep scores. These findings support further studies of CES in ACP for symptom control., (Copyright © 2017 American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)