Immunoassay Urine Drug Testing among Patients Receiving Opioids at a Safety-Net Palliative Medicine Clinic.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have examined the use of immunoassay urine drug testing of cancer patients in palliative care clinics. OBJECTIVES: We examined the frequency of immunoassay urine drug test (UDT) abnormalities and the factors associated with aberrancy at a safety-net hospital palliative medicine clinic. METHODS: A retrospective review of the electronic medical records of consecutive eligible patients seen at the outpatient palliative medicine clinic in a resource-limited safety-net hospital system was conducted between 1 September 2015 and 31 December 2020. We collected longitudinal data on patient demographics, UDT findings, and potential predictors of aberrant results. RESULTS: Of the 913 patients in the study, 500 (55%) underwent UDT testing, with 455 (50%) having the testing within the first three visits. Among those tested within the first three visits, 125 (27%) had aberrant UDT results; 44 (35%) of these 125 patients were positive for cocaine. In a multivariable regression model analysis of predictors for aberrant UDT within the first three visits, non-Hispanic White race (odds ratio (OR) = 2.13; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.03-4.38; p = 0.04), history of illicit drug use (OR = 3.57; CI: 1.78-7.13; p < 0.001), and history of marijuana use (OR = 7.05; CI: 3.85-12.91; p < 0.001) were independent predictors of an aberrant UDT finding. CONCLUSION: Despite limitations of immunoassay UDT, it was able to detect aberrant drug-taking behaviors in a significant number of patients seen at a safety-net hospital palliative care clinic, including cocaine use. These findings support universal UDT monitoring and utility of immunoassay-based UDT in resource-limited settings.

Adherence to Opioid Patient Prescriber Agreements at a Safety Net Hospital.

Patient prescriber agreements, also known as opioid contracts or opioid treatment agreements, have been recommended as a strategy for mitigating non-medical opioid use (NMOU). The purpose of our study was to characterize the proportion of patients with PPAs, the rate of non-adherence, and clinical predictors for PPA completion and non-adherence. This retrospective study covered consecutive cancer patients seen at a palliative care clinic at a safety net hospital between 1 September 2015 and 31 December 2019. We included patients 18 years or older with cancer diagnoses who received opioids. We collected patient characteristics at consultation and information regarding PPA. The primary purpose was to determine the frequency and predictors of patients with a PPA and non-adherence to PPAs. Descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression models were used for the analysis. The survey covered 905 patients having a mean age of 55 (range 18-93), of whom 474 (52%) were female, 423 (47%) were Hispanic, 603 (67%) were single, and 814 (90%) had advanced cancer. Of patients surveyed, 484 (54%) had a PPA, and 50 (10%) of these did not adhere to their PPA. In multivariable analysis, PPAs were associated with younger age (odds ratio [OR] 1.44; p = 0.02) and alcohol use (OR 1.72; p = 0.01). Non-adherence was associated with males (OR 3.66; p = 0.007), being single (OR 12.23; p = 0.003), tobacco (OR 3.34; p = 0.03) and alcohol use (OR 0.29; p = 0.02), contact with persons involved in criminal activity (OR 9.87; p < 0.001), use for non-malignant pain (OR 7.45; p = 0.006), and higher pain score (OR 1.2; p = 0.01). In summary, we found that PPA non-adherence occurred in a substantial minority of patients and was more likely in patients with known NMOU risk factors. These findings underscore the potential role of universal PPAs and systematic screening of NMOU risk factors to streamline care.

Interdisciplinary intervention for the management of nonmedical opioid use among patients with cancer pain.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have assessed interventions aimed at managing nonmedical opioid use (NMOU) behavior among patients with cancer. The authors developed the Compassionate High-Alert Team (CHAT) intervention to manage patients receiving opioids for cancer pain who demonstrate NMOU behavior. The objective of this study was to determine the change in frequency of NMOU behaviors, pain intensity, and opioid requirements among those who received the intervention. METHODS: A total of 130 patients receiving opioids for cancer pain that had documented evidence of NMOU and received the CHAT intervention were reviewed. Demographic and clinical information such as NMOU behaviors, pain scores, and morphine equivalent daily dose at baseline, 3, and 6 months post-intervention was obtained. RESULTS: NMOU behaviors significantly decreased from a median (interquartile range) of 2 (1-3) at baseline to 0 (0-1) at both 3 and 6 months post-intervention (p < .001). A total of 45 of 75 (60%) and 31 of 50 (62%) of CHAT recipients achieved complete response to the intervention at 3 and 6 months, respectively. Higher baseline number of NMOU behaviors was independently associated with patient response to the intervention (odds ratio [OR], 1.97; 95% confidence interval [CI],1.09-4.28, p = .049 at 3 months; OR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.20-6.47, p = .03 at 6 months). The median pain score decreased from 7 at baseline to 6 at both 3 and 6 months (p = .01). Morphine equivalent daily dose did not significantly change during that same period (143 mg/day vs. 139 mg/day, p = .13). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients who received the CHAT intervention improved in their NMOU behaviors and pain intensity scores 3 and 6 months post-intervention. These preliminary findings support the efficacy of CHAT in managing patients receiving opioids for cancer pain who demonstrate NMOU behavior.

Random urine drug testing among patients receiving opioid therapy for cancer pain.

BACKGROUND: There is limited information regarding the true frequency of nonmedical opioid use (NMOU) among patients receiving opioid therapy for cancer pain. Data to guide patient selection for urine drug testing (UDT) as well as the timing and frequency of ordering UDT are insufficient. This study examined the frequency of abnormal UDT among patients with cancer who underwent random UDT and their characteristics. METHODS: Demographic and clinical information for patients with cancer who underwent random UDT were retrospectively reviewed and compared with a historical cohort that underwent targeted UDT. Random UDT was ordered regardless of a patient's risk potential for NMOU. Targeted UDT was ordered on the basis of a physician's estimation of a patient's risk for NMOU. RESULTS: In all, 552 of 573 eligible patients (96%) underwent random UDT. Among these patients, 130 (24%) had 1 or more abnormal results; 38 of the 88 patients (43%) who underwent targeted UDT had 1 or more abnormal results. When marijuana was excluded, 15% of the random group and 37% of the targeted group had abnormal UDT findings (P < .001). It took a shorter time from the initial consultation to detect 1 or more abnormalities with the random test than the targeted test (median, 130 vs 274 days; P = .02). Abnormal random UDT was independently associated with younger age (P < .0001), male sex (P = .03), Cut Down, Annoyed, Guilty, and Eye Opener-Adapted to Include Drugs positivity (P = .001), and higher Edmonton Symptom Assessment System anxiety (P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 1 in 4 patients receiving opioids for cancer pain at a supportive care clinic who underwent random UDT had 1 or more abnormalities. Random UDT detected abnormalities earlier than the targeted test. These findings suggest that random UDT is justified among patients with cancer pain.

Urine Drug Testing in Cancer Pain Management.

Urine drug test (UDT) is an effective tool used in chronic opioid therapy to ensure patient adherence to treatment and detect nonmedical opioid use. The two main types of UDT used in routine clinical practice are the screening tests or immunoassays and the confirmatory tests or laboratory-based specific drug identification tests such as gas chromatography-mass spectrometry, liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry, or tandem mass spectrometry. UDT produces objective data on some nonmedical opioid use that may otherwise go undetected, such as the use of undisclosed medications, the nonuse of prescribed medications, and the use of illegal drugs. It allows clinicians to initiate an open and effective conversation about nonmedical opioid use with their patients. However, the test has certain limitations that sometimes compromise its use. Its interpretation can be challenging to clinicians because of the complexity of the opioid metabolic pathways. Clear guidelines or recommendations regarding the use of UDT in cancer pain is limited. As a result, UDT appears to be underused among patients with cancer pain receiving opioid therapy. More studies are needed to help standardize the integration and use of UDT in routine cancer pain management. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Despite its potential benefits, urine drug testing (UDT) appears to be underused among patients with cancer pain receiving opioid therapy. This is partly because its interpretation can be challenging owing to the complexity of the opioid metabolic pathways. Information regarding the use of UDT in opioid therapy among patients with cancer is limited. This review article will improve clinician proficiency in UDT interpretation and assist oncologists in developing appropriate treatment plans during chronic opioid therapy.

Practices and perceptions regarding intravenous opioid infusion and cancer pain management.

BACKGROUND: In view of the recent opioid crisis, ways to promote safe and effective opioid-related practices are needed. Faster intravenous (iv) opioid infusion rates can result in increased adverse effects and risk for nonmedical opioid use. Data on best practices regarding safe iv opioid administration for cancer pain are limited. This study examined iv opioid bolus infusion practices and perceptions about opioids in cancer pain among 4 groups of inpatient oncology nurses. METHODS: An anonymous cross-sectional survey was conducted among oncology nurses working in medical, surgical, intensive care unit (ICU), and emergency department (ED) settings. An iv opioid bolus infusion speed less than 120 seconds was considered too fast. RESULTS: The participant response rate was 59% (731 of 1234). Approximately 58%, 54%, and 58% of all nurses administered morphine, hydromorphone, and fentanyl, respectively, in less than 120 seconds. The median morphine infusion speeds were 55, 60, 60, and 85 seconds for ICU, surgical, ED, and medical unit nurses, respectively (P = .0002). The odds ratios for infusing too fast were 2.04 and 2.52 for ED (P = .039) and ICU nurses (P = .003), respectively, in comparison with medical unit nurses, and they were 0.27 and 0.18 with frequent (P = .003) and very frequent use of a timing device (P = .0001), respectively, in comparison with no use. CONCLUSIONS: More than half the nurses working in the inpatient setting reported administering iv opioids too fast. ICU nurses administered opioids the fastest. Nurses who frequently used a timing device were less likely to infuse too fast. Further research is needed to standardize and improve the safe intermittent administration of iv opioids to patients with cancer.

Predicting the risk for aberrant opioid use behavior in patients receiving outpatient supportive care consultation at a comprehensive cancer center.

BACKGROUND: Opioid misuse is a growing crisis. Patients with cancer who are at risk of aberrant drug behaviors are frequently underdiagnosed. The primary objective of this study was to determine the frequency and factors predicting a risk for aberrant opioid and drug use behaviors (ADB) among patients who received an outpatient supportive care consultation at a comprehensive cancer center. In addition, the screening performance of the Cut Down-Annoyed-Guilty-Eye Opener (CAGE) questionnaire adapted to include drug use (CAGE-AID) was compared with that of the 14-item Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients With Pain (SOAPP-14) tool as instruments for identifying patients at risk for ADB. METHODS: In total, 751 consecutive patients with cancer who were referred to a supportive care clinic were reviewed. Patients were eligible if they had diagnosis of cancer and had received opioids for pain for at least 1 week. All patients were assessed using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), the SOAPP-14, and the CAGE-AID. SOAPP scores ≥7 (SOAPP-positive) were used to identify patients who were at risk of ADB. RESULTS: Among the 729 of 751 (97%) evaluable consults, 143 (19.6%) were SOAPP-positive, and 73 (10.5%) were CAGE-AID-positive. Multivariate analysis revealed that the odds ratio of a positive SOAPP score was 2.3 for patients who had positive CAGE-AID scores (P < .0001), 2.08 for men (P = .0013), 1.10 per point for ESAS pain (P = .014), 1.13 per point for ESAS anxiety (P = .0015), and 1.09 per point for ESAS financial distress (P = .012). A CAGE-AID cutoff score of 1 in 4 had 43.3% sensitivity and 90.93% specificity for screening patients with a high risk of ADB. CONCLUSIONS: The current results indicate a high frequency of an elevated risk of ADB among patients with cancer. Men and patients who have anxiety, financial distress, and a prior history of alcoholism/illicit drug use are at increased risk of ADB.

Frequency, predictors, and outcomes of urine drug testing among patients with advanced cancer on chronic opioid therapy at an outpatient supportive care clinic.

BACKGROUND: Data are limited on the use and outcomes of urine drug tests (UDTs) among patients with advanced cancer. The main objective of this study was to determine the factors associated with UDT ordering and results in outpatients with advanced cancer. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted of 1058 patients who attended an outpatient supportive care clinic from March 2014 to November 2015. Sixty-one patients who were receiving chronic opioid therapy and underwent UDTs were identified. A control group of 120 patients who did not undergo UDTs was selected for comparison. RESULTS: Sixty-one of 1058 patients (6%) underwent UDTs, and 33 of 61 patients (54%) had abnormal results. Multivariate analysis indicated that the odds ratio for UDT ordering was 3.9 in patients who had positive Cut Down, Annoyed, Guilty, and Eye Opener (CAGE) questionnaire results (P = .002), 4.41 in patients aged < 45 years (P < .001), 5.58 in patients who had moderate-to-severe pain (Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale pain scores ≥4; P < .001), 0.27 in patients with advanced-stage cancer, (P = .008), and 0.25 in patients who had moderate-to-severe fatigue (P = .001). Among 52 abnormal UDT results in 33 patients, the most common opioid findings were prescribed opioids absent in urine (14 of 52 tests; 27%) and unprescribed opioids in urine (13 of 52 tests; 25%). CONCLUSIONS: UDTs were used infrequently among outpatients with advanced cancer who were receiving chronic opioid therapy. Younger age, positive CAGE questionnaire results, early stage cancer or no evidence of disease status, higher pain intensity, and lower fatigue scores were significant predictors of UDT ordering. More than 50% of UDT results were abnormal. More research is necessary to better characterize aberrant opioid use in patients with advanced cancer. Cancer 2016;122:3732-9. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Aberrant Opioid Use and Urine Drug Testing in Outpatient Palliative Care.

Aberrant opioid use is a public health issue, which has not been adequately described in the palliative care literature. With the increasing integration of palliative care into oncologic care, palliative care clinicians are seeing patients earlier in the disease trajectory, and therefore, more outpatients with chronic pain requiring chronic opioid therapy. This may have resulted in a concomitant rise in the number of patients with aberrant opioid use. In this article, we report on two patients with aberrant opioid-related behavior seen at our palliative care clinic. A high suspicion of opioid abuse, misuse, or diversion based on certain behavioral cues necessitated the ordering of a urine drug test (UDT). The tests helped the medical team to confirm an already existing pattern of maladaptive opioid use. In both cases, we provided ample opioid education and implemented effective strategies to address their aberrant opioid use. These cases suggest the need for palliative care clinicians to develop strategies to effectively address this issue in our field of medicine. It also highlights the usefulness of UDT in the outpatient palliative care setting.