Assessing the Acceptability of Yoga Among Patients with and without Chronic Pain Enrolled in a Licensed Opioid Treatment Program.

There is a pressing need to identify non-opioid, evidence-based treatments to address the high prevalence of chronic pain in licensed opioid treatment programs (OTP). Yoga is an effective pain coping strategy but is not widely used by OTP patients. Few studies have examined underlying factors related to poor yoga utilization in this population. Seventy-one participants with and without chronic pain enrolled in a hospital-based OTP completed an acceptability survey assessing pain, current pain coping strategies, prior yoga experience, willingness to try yoga, and beliefs about yoga. Participants with and without chronic pain were compared, as were participants with and without prior yoga experience. The relationships between primary study variables in the chronic pain group were also explored. Participants reported using over-the-counter medications, meditation, stretching, and exercise to manage chronic pain, but yoga was not commonly used. Participants with prior yoga experience reported higher willingness to try yoga and more favorable beliefs about yoga than participants without prior yoga experience. There were no significant differences in willingness to try yoga between participants with and without chronic pain. Among participants with chronic pain, there was a positive association between total number of pain coping strategies used and willingness to try yoga. This study adds to the existing literature on the implementation of yoga programs into OTPs by demonstrating the acceptability of yoga in patients with opioid use disorder, including those experiencing chronic pain, and encourages additional research exploring implementation.

A Qualitative Investigation Into Faith and LGBTQ Identities in a Nonclinical Sample of Readers of the Dear Abby Column: The Dear Abby Project.

ABSTRACT: To better understand the relationship between faith and LGBTQ+ identity, we conducted a qualitative analysis of 86 respondents to a general question posed through the Dear Abby column. Responses were anonymized and analyzed using a grounded theory approach. Analysis revealed six themes, reflecting a diversity of lived experience from community rejection to acceptance, and self-rejection to feelings of acceptance by God. Despite frequent media portrayals of conflict between faith and LGBTQ+ identity, the reality is more complex, and faith and LGBTQ+ identity development can be complementary.

Experimental sleep disruption attenuates morphine analgesia: findings from a randomized trial and implications for the opioid abuse epidemic.

Preclinical studies demonstrate that sleep disruption diminishes morphine analgesia and modulates reward processing. We sought to translate these preclinical findings to humans by examining whether sleep disruption alters morphine's analgesic and hedonic properties. We randomized 100 healthy adults to receive morphine versus placebo after two nights of undisturbed sleep (US) and two nights of forced awakening (FA) sleep disruption. Sleep conditions were counterbalanced, separated by a two-week washout. The morning after both sleep conditions, we tested cold pressor pain tolerance before and 40-min after double-blind injection of .08 mg/kg morphine or placebo. The primary outcome was the analgesia index, calculated as the change in cold pressor hand withdrawal latency (HWL) before and after drug injection. Secondary outcomes were ratings of feeling "high," drug "liking," and negative drug effects. We found a significant sleep condition by drug interaction on the analgesia index (95% CI - 0.57, - 0.001). After US, subjects receiving morphine demonstrated significantly longer HWL compared to placebo (95% CI 0.23, 0.65), but not after FA (95% CI - 0.05, 0.38). Morphine analgesia was diminished threefold under FA, relative to US. After FA, females (95% CI - 0.88, - 0.05), but not males (95% CI - 0.23, 0.72), reported decreased subjective "high" effects compared to US. After FA, females (95% CI 0.05, 0.27), but not males (95% CI - 0.10, 0.11), administered morphine reported increased negative drug effects compared to US. These data demonstrate that sleep disruption attenuates morphine analgesia in humans and suggest that sleep disturbed males may be at greatest risk for problematic opioid use.

Preliminary evidence of different and clinically meaningful opioid withdrawal phenotypes.

Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a public health crisis. Differences in opioid withdrawal severity that predict treatment outcome could facilitate the process of matching patients to treatments. This is a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) that enrolled treatment seeking heroin-users (N = 89, males = 78) into a residential study. Participants maintained on morphine (30 mg, subcutaneous, four-times daily) underwent a naloxone (0.4 mg, IM = intramuscular) challenge session to precipitate withdrawal. Area-under-the-curve (AUC) values from self-reported withdrawal ratings during the challenge session were analyzed using K-means clustering, revealing two phenotype groups. Withdrawal and retention from the subsequent 14-day double-blind, double-dummy RCT comparing three study medications (clonidine, tramadol-ER, and buprenorphine) were evaluated as a function of phenotype. Cluster analyses suggested HIGH (N = 37; mean [SD] subjective opiate withdrawal scale [SOWS]-AUC 123.7 [65.8]) and LOW (N = 52; SOWS-AUC 68.0 [47.7]) withdrawal phenotype groups. HIGH participants were significantly more female and had lower body mass indices than LOW participants; no drug-use variables were significant. Regarding RCT outcomes, HIGH phenotype participants were less likely to be retained in the study (P = 0.02) and had higher mean self-reported withdrawal (P = 0.05) than LOW phenotype participants. A significant interaction in RCT retention was observed between phenotype (P = 0.02) and study medication (P < 0.01). Self-reported withdrawal was significant for phenotype (P = 0.02); study medication trended towards significance (P = 0.07). Results suggest patients have meaningfully different experiences of opioid withdrawal that may predict differential response to opioid pharmacotherapies during supervised withdrawal. Additional prospective research to replicate and more thoroughly evaluate withdrawal phenotype correlates and sex differences is warranted.

Recovery Goals and Long-term Treatment Preference in Persons Who Engage in Nonmedical Opioid Use.

BACKGROUND: While most opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment providers consider opioid abstinence to be the preferred outcome, little is known about the treatment preferences of the larger population of individuals who engage in nonmedical opioid use and have not yet sought treatment. This study sought to descriptively quantify the proportion of out-of-treatment individuals with nonmedical opioid use that have abstinent and nonabstinent recovery goals. METHODS: Participants (N = 235) who engage in nonmedical opioid use and met self-reported criteria for OUD were recruited online and participated in a cross-sectional survey on recovery goals and treatment perceptions. Participants were dichotomized as having either abstinent (70.6%) or nonabstinent (29.4%) recovery goals. Participants were presented with 13 treatment options and asked which treatment they would "try first" and which treatment they thought would be the best option for long-term recovery. RESULTS: Persons in the nonabstinent group were more likely to want to continue use of prescription opioids as prescribed by a physician compared with the abstinent group (χ[1] = 9.71, P = 0.002). There were no group differences regarding preference for individual OUD treatments. The most frequently endorsed treatments that participants would "try first" were physician visits (23.4%), one-on-one counseling (18.7%), and 12-step groups (13.2%), whereas the most frequently endorsed treatments for long-term recovery were one-on-one counseling (17.4%), residential treatment (16.7%), and buprenorphine (15.3%). CONCLUSION: Public health initiatives to engage out-of-treatment individuals should take into account recovery goals and treatment preferences to maximize treatment initiation and retention.

Pain catastrophizing may moderate the association between pain and secondary hyperalgesia.

Catastrophizing, a persistent negative mental set characterized by helplessness, rumination, and magnification of pain sensations, has a potent effect on pain report and clinical outcomes. Previous studies have documented an association between cognitive factors and central sensitization. The current analysis sought to test the potential modulating effect of pain catastrophizing on the association between capsaicin pain and the region of secondary hyperalgesia. Thirty-eight healthy individuals (50% women, mean age = 25.7, SD = 5.3) completed the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), then underwent topical application of 10% capsaicin, which was covered by a thermode maintained at 40°C for 90-min. Following removal of the capsaicin, the region of secondary hyperalgesia was determined. Hayes' PROCESS macro was employed to examine catastrophizing's potential moderating effect, which did not reveal a significant association between capsaicin pain ratings and the region of secondary hyperalgesia (ß = 15.1, p = .06). Though PCS was not associated with area of secondary hyperalgesia (ß = 23.9, p = .29), a significant interaction was present between PCS and capsaicin pain ratings (ß = 3.7, p = .0004). Specifically, those endorsing higher catastrophizing levels and higher pain ratings experienced the greatest areas of secondary hyperalgesia. The Johnson-Neyman technique was used to determine the regional effect of the moderation, which indicated that when PCS scores were ≥10.6, capsaicin pain significantly moderated the association between pain and area of secondary hyperalgesia. These results suggest that catastrophizing plays an important role in the area of secondary hyperalgesia, and potentially central sensitization, warranting further testing in future research.

The effect of repeated intramuscular alfentanil injections on experimental pain and abuse liability indices in healthy males.

OBJECTIVE: Opioid-induced hyperalgesia (OIH), increased sensitivity to noxious stimuli after repeated opioid exposures, has been demonstrated in preclinical studies. However, there is no accepted, prospective model of OIH after repeated opioid exposures currently available in humans. This study assessed a potential prospective OIH model. METHODS: Double-blind intramuscular injections of a short-acting opioid (alfentanil 15 mcg/kg; N=8) were compared to active placebo (diphenhydramine 25 mg; N=3) on cold and pressure pain testing and standard abuse liability measures in eight 10-hour sessions (1 injection/session) over 4 to 5 weeks in healthy, pain-free males. Decreases from session baseline pain threshold (PThr) and tolerance (PTol) were calculated to represent hyperalgesia, and were assessed both within and across sessions. RESULTS: Mean decreases in cold PTol were seen in the alfentanil group at 180 minutes (-3.8 s, ±26.5) and 480 minutes (-1.63 s, ±31.5) after drug administration. There was a trend for differences between conditions on cold PThr hyperalgesia but not for pressure PThr. Alfentanil participants had greater mean ratings on Liking and High visual analog scales at peak effects (30 min), but these scores did not change across sessions. DISCUSSION: Repeated alfentanil exposures over 4 to 5 weeks resulted in within session decreases in cold pain tolerance from baseline but these differences were not substantially different from diphenhydramine controls. The results did not support the phenomenon of OIH in this model, although definitive conclusions regarding the existence of OIH in humans likely requires a larger sample size or an alternative model.

Human abuse liability assessment of oxycodone combined with ultra-low-dose naltrexone.

RATIONALE: Prescription opioid abuse has risen dramatically in the United States as clinicians have increased opioid prescribing for alleviation of both acute and chronic pain. Opioid analgesics with decreased risk for abuse are needed. OBJECTIVE: Preclinical and clinical studies have shown that opioids combined with ultra-low-dose naltrexone (NTX) may have increased analgesic potency and have suggested reduced abuse or dependence liability. This study addressed whether addition of ultra-low-dose naltrexone might decrease the abuse liability of oxycodone (OXY) in humans. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This double-blind, placebo-controlled study systematically examined the subjective and physiological effects of combining oral OXY and ultra-low NTX doses in 14 experienced opioid abusers. Seven acute drug conditions given at least 5 days apart were compared in a within-subject crossover design: placebo, OXY 20 mg, OXY 40 mg, plus each of the active OXY doses combined with 0.0001 and 0.001 mg NTX. RESULTS: The methods were sensitive to detecting opioid effects on abuse liability indices, with significant differences between all OXY conditions and placebo as well as between 20 and 40 mg OXY doses on positive subjective ratings (e.g., "I feel a good drug effect" or "I like the drug"), on observer- and participant-rated opioid agonist effects, and on a drug-versus-money value rating. There were no significant differences or evident trends associated with the addition of either NTX dose on any abuse liability indices. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of ultra-low-dose NTX to OXY did not decrease abuse liability of acutely administered OXY in experienced opioid abusers.