Search

BackgroundEfforts to reduce opioid overdose fatalities have resulted in tapering (i.e., reducing or discontinuing) opioid prescriptions despite a limited understanding of patients' experiences.ObjectiveTo explore patients' perspectives on opioid taper experiences to ultimately improve taper processes and outcomes.DesignQualitative study.ParticipantsPatients on long-term opioid therapy for chronic pain who had undergone a reduction of opioid daily prescribed dosage of ≥50% in the past 2 years in two distinct medical systems and regions.ApproachFrom 2019 to 2020, we conducted semi-structured interviews that were audio-recorded, transcribed, systematically coded, and analyzed to summarize the content and identify key themes regarding taper experiences overall and with particular attention to patient-provider relationships and provider communication during tapers.Key resultsParticipants (n=41) had lived with chronic pain for an average of 17.4 years (range, 3-36 years) and described generally adverse experiences with opioid tapers, the initiation of which was not always adequately justified or explained to them. Consequences of tapers ranged from minor to substantial and included withdrawal, mobility issues, emotional distress, exacerbated mental health symptoms, and feelings of social stigmatization for which adequate supports were typically unavailable. Narratives highlighted the consequential role of patient-provider relationships throughout taper experiences, with most participants describing significant interpersonal challenges including poor provider communication and limited patient engagement in decision making. A few participants identified qualities of providers, relationships, and communication that fostered more positive taper experiences and outcomes.ConclusionsFrom patients' perspectives, opioid tapers can produce significant physical, emotional, and social consequences, sometimes reducing trust and engagement in healthcare. Patient-provider relationships and communication influence patients' perceptions of the quality and outcomes of opioid tapers. To improve patients' experiences of opioid tapers, tapering plans should be based on individualized risk-benefit assessments and involve patient-centered approaches and improved provider communication.

Key Points: Question: Is cost sharing associated with nondispensing of naloxone prescriptions (abandonment)? Findings: This cross-sectional analysis of 2020-2021 data from a national pharmacy transactions database used a regression discontinuity approach to evaluate the association between cost sharing and abandonment, exploiting the fact that deductibles typically reset at the beginning of the year in commercial insurance plans and in Medicare plans. The findings suggest a decision by commercial and Medicare plans to increase naloxone cost sharing by $10 would be associated with a 3.1- and 2.3-percentage-point increase in the probability of abandonment, respectively. Meaning: Cost sharing may be a barrier to dispensing of naloxone prescriptions in commercially insured and Medicare patients. Importance: Increasing access to naloxone (an opioid antagonist that can reverse overdose) could slow the US opioid epidemic. Prior studies suggest cost sharing may be a barrier to dispensing of naloxone prescriptions, but these studies were limited by their cross-sectional designs and use of databases that do not capture prescriptions that are not filled (abandoned). Objective: To evaluate the association between cost sharing and naloxone prescription abandonment (nondispensing of naloxone prescriptions). Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional, regression discontinuity analysis exploited the fact that deductibles typically reset at the beginning of the year in commercial and Medicare plans. The included data were derived from the 2020-2021 IQVIA Formulary Impact Analyzer (a pharmacy transactions database that represents 63% of prescriptions at US pharmacies). The analysis included claims for naloxone nasal spray among commercially insured patients and Medicare patients that occurred during the 60 days before January 1, 2021, through 59 days after January 1, 2021. Exposure: Cost sharing, which is defined as the amount patients would have to pay to fill prescriptions. Main Outcomes and Measures: Local linear regression models were used to assess for abrupt changes in cost sharing and the probability of prescription abandonment on January 1, 2021. To estimate the association between cost sharing and prescription abandonment, a fuzzy regression discontinuity analysis was conducted. Results: These analyses included naloxone claims for 71 306 commercially insured patients and 101 706 Medicare patients (40 019 [56.1%] and 61 410 [60.4%], respectively, were female). The commercially insured patients and Medicare patients accounted for 73 311 and 106 076 naloxone claims, respectively. On January 1, 2021, the mean cost sharing per claim increased by $15.0 (95% CI, $13.8-$16.2) for commercially insured patients and increased by $12.3 (95% CI, $10.9-$13.6) for Medicare patients and the probability of abandonment increased by 4.7 (95% CI, 3.2-6.2) percentage points and 2.8 (95% CI, 1.6-4.1) percentage points, respectively. The results from the fuzzy regression discontinuity analysis suggest a decision by commercial and Medicare plans to increase naloxone cost sharing by $10 would be associated with percentage-point increases of 3.1 (95% CI, 2.2-4.1) and 2.3 (95% CI, 1.4-3.2), respectively, in the probability of abandonment. Conclusions: The elimination of cost sharing might be associated with increased naloxone dispensing to commercially insured and Medicare patients. This study evaluates the association between cost sharing and naloxone prescription abandonment (nondispensing of naloxone prescriptions) in commercial insurance and Medicare plans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective Most studies on preoperative opioid use only describe whether or not patients use opioids without characterizing reasons for use. Knowing why patients use opioids can help inform perioperative opioid management. The objective of this study was to explore pain specific reasons for preoperative opioid use prior to total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA and TKA) and their association with persistent use. Methods This is a prospective study of 197 patients undergoing THA (n = 99) or TKA (n = 98) enrolled in the Analgesic Outcomes Study between December 2015 and November 2018. All participants reported preoperative opioid use. Results Reasons for preoperative opioid use were categorized as surgical site pain only (81 [41.1%]); pain in other body areas only (22 [11.2%]); and combined pain (94 [47.7%]). Compared to patients taking opioids for surgical site pain, those with combined reasons for use had 1.24 (P  = .40) and 2.28 (P  = .16) greater odds of persistent use at 3 and 6 months postoperatively, adjusting for relevant covariates. Conclusions This study provides novel insights into the heterogeneity of reasons for presurgical opioid use in patients undergoing a THA or TKA. One key take away is that not all preoperative opioid use is the same and many patients are taking opioids preoperatively for more than just pain at the surgical site. Combined reasons for use was associated with long-term use, suggesting nonsurgical pain, in part, drives persistent opioid use after surgery. Future directions in perioperative care should focus on pain and non-pain reasons for presurgical opioid use to create tailored postoperative opioid weaning plans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Patients prescribed long-term opioid therapy for chronic pain often experience unrelieved pain, poor quality of life, and serious adverse events., Objective: To compare the effects of integrated pain team (IPT) vs pharmacist collaborative management (PCM) on pain and opioid dosage., Design, Setting, and Participants: This study was a pragmatic multisite 12-month randomized comparative effectiveness trial with masked outcome assessment. Patients were recruited from October 2017 to March 2021; follow-up was completed June 2022. The study sites were Veterans Affairs primary care clinics. Eligible patients had moderate to severe chronic pain despite long-term opioid therapy (≥20 mg/d for at least 3 months)., Interventions: IPT involved interdisciplinary pain care planning, visits throughout 12 months with medical and mental health clinicians, and emphasis on nondrug therapies and motivational interviewing. PCM was a collaborative care intervention involving visits throughout 12 months with a clinical pharmacist care manager who conducted structured monitoring and medication optimization. Both interventions provided individualized pain care and opioid tapering recommendations to patients., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was pain response (≥30% decrease in Brief Pain Inventory total score) at 12 months. The main secondary outcome was 50% or greater reduction in opioid daily dosage at 12 months., Results: A total of 820 patients were randomized to IPT (n = 411) or PCM (n = 409). Participants' mean (SD) age was 62.2 (10.6) years, and 709 (86.5%) were male. A pain response was achieved in 58/350 patients in the IPT group (16.4%) vs 54/362 patients in the PCM group (14.9%) (odds ratio, 1.11 [95% CI, 0.74-1.67]; P = .61). A 50% opioid dose reduction was achieved in 102/403 patients in the IPT group (25.3%) vs 98/399 patients in the PCM group (24.6%) (odds ratio, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.75-1.42]; P = .85). Over 12 months, the mean (SD) Brief Pain Inventory total score improved from 6.7 (1.5) points to 6.1 (1.8) points (P < .001) in IPT and from 6.6 (1.6) points to 6.0 (1.9) points (P < .001) in PCM (between-group P = .82). Over 12 months, mean (SD) opioid daily dosage decreased from 80.8 (74.2) mg/d to 54.2 (65.0) mg/d in IPT (P < .001) and from 74.5 (56.9) mg/d to 52.8 (51.9) mg/d (P < .001) in PCM (between-group P = .22)., Conclusions and Relevance: Outcomes in this randomized clinical trial did not differ between groups; both had small improvements in pain and substantial reductions in opioid dosage., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03026790.

Background/objectives: Chronic pain is an opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment barrier and associated with poor outcomes in OUD treatment including relapse. Fibromyalgia is a chronic pain condition related to central nervous system substrates that overlap with the brain disease model of OUD. We know of no studies that have looked at non-treatment seeking individuals, to see if fibromyalgia might represent a barrier to OUD treatment. Given many non-treatment-seeking individuals previously attempted recovery before experiencing relapse, and chronic pain is a known precipitant of relapse, fibromyalgia might be a currently unappreciated modifiable factor in OUD relapse and, potentially, a barrier to treatment reengagement among those not currently seeking treatment. This study aimed to determine if fibromyalgia is associated with greater odds of agreeing that 'I have tried to stop using opioids before, but pain caused me to relapse' among non-treatment seeking individuals with OUD., Methods: This cross-sectional study recruited non-treatment-seeking individuals with OUD ( n  = 141) from a syringe service program. Ordinal logistic regression was used to determine if the presence of fibromyalgia increased the odds of agreement with prior pain-precipitated relapse., Results: Fibromyalgia was identified in 35% of study participants and associated with 125% greater odds of strongly agreeing that pain had previously caused them to relapse, even after accounting for relevant covariates, including age, sex, depression, anxiety, OUD severity, and pain severity., Conclusions: This study provides early evidence that the presence of fibromyalgia may be associated with increased odds of pain-precipitated OUD relapse.

Objectives: Stigma and lack of knowledge are barriers to clinicians when caring for individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD). In 2018, only about 15 out of 180 American medical schools had comprehensive addiction programs. The AAMC reports that institutions are increasingly incorporating competencies to address the OUD and opioid epidemic. There have been few evaluated curriculums focused on reducing stigmatizing attitudes. This study evaluated whether a 4-hour case-based curriculum focused on improving stigmatizing attitudes toward patients with OUD could reduce medical student perceptions around viewing addiction as a punitive condition and other substitution-based misconceptions around opioid agonist-based medication., Methods: Medical students completed a 4-hour curricular workshop which included learning objectives focusing on barriers to healthcare/stigmatizing attitudes, effective behavioral therapy options, and appropriate use of opioid medications. We measured changes in knowledge and attitudes using validated scales on stigma. Non-parametric repeated measure tests determined statistically significant differences between pre and post assessments between OUD related perceptions and a control condition (diabetes)., Results: Of 135 eligible participants, 99 (76%) students completed both pre- and post-surveys. Mean scores across knowledge questions improved (60%-81%, P  < .001) and stigmatizing attitudes regarding perceived violence of people with OUD decreased (2.04-1.82, P  = .016). There was significant improvement in mean scores for OUD-related opinions including desire to work with and effectively treat patients with OUD (3.58-3.88, P  < .001) while no significant concurrent change was observed in mean opinion scores of a non-OUD comparator, diabetes (3.88-3.97, P  = .201)., Conclusions: Results indicate that the workshop was associated with measurable changes in knowledge and attitudinal forms of OUD stigma. With recent policy changes eliminating the X-waiver, healthcare institutions are eager to design curriculum around OUD management and treatment. This study provides a blueprint for an effective curriculum that improves clinician knowledge and reduces stigmatizing attitudes., Competing Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article., (© The Author(s) 2024.)