"It Feels Like Health Care With the Patient in Mind": VA Patient and Staff Perspectives on Self-Collected HPV Testing.

PURPOSE: Self-collected testing for human papillomavirus (HPV) is poised to transform cervical cancer screening. Self-tests demonstrate similar accuracy to clinician-collected tests, but for the half a million women served by the Veterans Health Administration (VA) and their clinicians, self-collected cervical cancer screening would be a new practice. We examined VA patient and staff perspectives to inform future implementation. METHODS: Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted between 2021 and 2022 with female veterans receiving VA care (n = 22) and VA women's health nurses, clinicians, and administrators (n = 27). Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Interview questions addressed knowledge and interest, potential advantages or disadvantages, and any questions participants had about self-collected screening. Responses were analyzed using rapid qualitative methods. MAIN FINDINGS: Five overarching themes were identified. Both patients and staff indicated high interest and enthusiasm for self-collected HPV testing, tempered by questions about test accuracy and logistical considerations. Familiarity with self-testing for other conditions such as colon-cancer screening or COVID made self-collection seem like a simple, convenient option. However, self-testing was not viewed as a good fit for all patients, and concerns about lost opportunities or missed incidental lesions were raised. Patients and staff described challenges with pelvic examinations for patients with past sexual trauma, particularly in the male-dominated VA environment. Pelvic exams can leave patients feeling vulnerable and exposed; self-collected testing was seen as a mechanism for patient empowerment. PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS: Veteran patients and VA staff shared common perspectives about potential advantages and disadvantages of self-collected HPV testing. Self-collected HPV testing has the potential to improve trauma-informed preventive health care for veterans.

Examining patient reported outcome measures for phantom limb pain: measurement use in a sample of Veterans with amputation.

PURPOSE: Phantom limb pain (PLP) is treated with medications and non-drug treatments. Best clinical practices for measuring treatment outcomes have not been defined. The objective of this study was to evaluate the internal consistency of patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) in a sample of Veterans with lower limb amputation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Veteran phone survey included administering PROMs [1) PLP numeric rating scale (NRS), 2) general pain NRS, 3) Pain, Enjoyment, and General Activity (PEG) scale, 4) Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Pain Interference Short Form 6b Replacement, 5) PROMIS Short Form Depression 4a and 6) PROMIS Short Form Anxiety 4a]. RESULTS: Fifty Veterans (48 male, 2 female; average age: 66 years) completed PROMs. In our sample, 40 Veterans (80%) experienced PLP with an average PLP NRS of 5 (±3.4). Internal consistency of each measure was good to excellent based on Cronbach's alpha co-efficient of >0.80. Correlations were moderate between PLP NRS and all other measures (≤0.32). Although many Veterans expressed bothersome PLP, the scores reflecting pain interference and impact on function were lower than pain intensity. Consistent use of outcome measures is needed to determine the effect of interventions for amputation-related pain.

The majority of Veterans reported phantom limb pain and residual limb pain, though the frequency and duration of the pain conditions varied.Clinicians should use caution when using only the numeric rating scale to assess pain, as it may not give enough information to fully evaluate the pain experience.It is recommended that clinicians evaluate phantom limb pain separate from general pain to best serve patients' needs.

Erratum: 404 Mechanisms of a Dynamic Stability Protocol for Persons with Thumb Osteoarthritis - CORRIGENDUM.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1017/cts.2024.351.].

A national study of clinical discussions about cannabis use among Veteran patients prescribed opioids.

BACKGROUND: The Veterans Health Administration tracks urine drug tests (UDTs) among patients on long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) and recommends discussing the health effects of cannabis use. OBJECTIVE: To determine the occurrence of cannabis-related discussions between providers and patients on LTOT during six months following UDT positive for cannabis, and examine factors associated with documenting cannabis use. DESIGN: We identified patients prescribed LTOT with a UDT positive for cannabis in 2019. We developed a text-processing tool to extract discussions around cannabis use from their charts. SUBJECTS: Twelve thousand seventy patients were included. Chart review was conducted on a random sample of 1,946 patients. MAIN MEASURES: The presence of a cannabis term in the chart suggesting documented cannabis use or cannabis-related discussions. Content of those discussions was extracted in a subset of patients. Logistic regression was used to examine the association between patient factors, including state of residence legal status, with documentation of cannabis use. KEY RESULTS: Among the 12,070 patients, 65.8% (N = 7,948) had a cannabis term, whereas 34.1% (N = 4,122) of patients lacked a cannabis term, suggesting that no documentation of cannabis use or discussion between provider and patient took place. Among the subset of patients who had a discussion documented, 47% related to cannabis use for medical reasons, 35% related to a discussion of VA policy or legal issues, and 17% related to a discussion specific to medical risks or harm reduction strategies. In adjusted analyses, residents of states with legalized recreational cannabis were less likely to have any cannabis-related discussion compared to patients in non-legal states [OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.64-0.82]. CONCLUSIONS: One-third of LTOT patients did not have documentation of cannabis use in the chart in the 6 months following a positive UDT for cannabis. Discussions related to the medical risks of cannabis use or harm reduction strategies were uncommon.

The design and baseline characteristics for the HOPE Consortium Trial to reduce pain and opioid use in hemodialysis.

The HOPE Consortium Trial to Reduce Pain and Opioid Use in Hemodialysis (HOPE Trial) is a multicenter randomized trial addressing chronic pain among patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis for end-stage kidney disease. The trial uses a sequential, multiple assignment design with a randomized component for all participants (Phase 1) and a non-randomized component for a subset of participants (Phase 2). During Phase 1, participants are randomized to Pain Coping Skills Training (PCST), an intervention designed to increase self-efficacy for managing pain, or Usual Care. PCST consists of weekly, live, coach-led cognitive behavioral therapy sessions delivered by video- or tele-conferencing for 12 weeks followed by daily interactive voice response sessions delivered by telephone for an additional 12 weeks. At 24 weeks (Phase 2), participants in both the PCST and Usual Care groups taking prescription opioid medications at an average dose of ≥20 morphine milligram equivalents per day are offered buprenorphine, a partial opioid agonist with a more favorable safety profile than full-agonist opioids. All participants are followed for 36 weeks. The primary outcome is pain interference ascertained, for the primary analysis, at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes include additional patient-reported measures and clinical outcomes including falls, hospitalizations, and death. Exploratory outcomes include acceptability, tolerability, and efficacy of buprenorphine. The enrollment target of 640 participants was met 27 months after trial initiation. The findings of the trial will inform the management of chronic pain, a common and challenging issue for patients treated with maintenance hemodialysis. NCT04571619.

Clinician perspectives on postamputation pain assessment and rehabilitation interventions.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to explore self-reported Veterans Affairs (VA) amputation clinician perspectives and clinical practices regarding the measurement and treatment for amputation-related pain. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey with 73 VA rehabilitation clinicians within the VA Health Care System. RESULTS: The most frequent clinical backgrounds of respondents included physical therapists (36%), prosthetists (32%), and physical medicine and rehabilitation specialist (21%). Forty-one clinicians (56%) reported using pain outcome measures with a preference for average pain intensity numeric rating scale (generic) (97%), average phantom limb pain intensity numeric rating scale (80%), or Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System pain interference (12%) measures. Clinicians' most frequently recommended interventions were compression garments, desensitization, and physical therapy. Clinicians identified mindset, cognition, and motivation as factors that facilitate a patient's response to treatments. Conversely, clinicians identified poor adherence, lack of belief in interventions, and preference for traditional pain interventions (e.g., medications) as common barriers to improvement. We asked about the frequently used treatment of graded motor imagery. Although graded motor imagery was originally developed with 3 phases (limb laterality, explicit motor imagery, mirror therapy), clinicians reported primarily using explicit motor imagery and mirror therapy. RESULTS: Most clinicians who use standardized pain measures prefer intensity ratings. Clinicians select pain interventions based on the patient's presentation. This work contributes to the understanding of factors influencing clinicians' treatment selection for nondrug interventions. Future work that includes qualitative components could further discern implementation barriers to amputation pain rehabilitation interventions for greater consistency in practice.

A national population-based study of cannabis use and correlates among U.S. veterans prescribed opioids in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis is marketed as a treatment for pain. There is limited data on the prevalence of cannabis use and its correlates among Veterans prescribed opioids. OBJECTIVE: To examine the prevalence and correlates of cannabis use among Veterans prescribed opioids. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: Veterans with a urine drug test (UDT) from Primary Care 2014-2018, in 50 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico. A total of 1,182,779 patients were identified with an opioid prescription within 90 days prior to UDT. MAIN MEASURES: Annual prevalence of cannabis positive UDT by state. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess associations of demographic factors, mental health conditions, substance use disorders, and pain diagnoses with cannabis positive UDT. RESULTS: Annual prevalence of cannabis positive UDT ranged from 8.5% to 9.7% during the study period, and in 2018 was 18.15% in Washington, D.C. and 10 states with legalized medical and recreational cannabis, 6.1% in Puerto Rico and 25 states with legalized medical cannabis, and 4.5% in non-legal states. Younger age, male sex, being unmarried, and marginal housing were associated with use (p < 0.001). Post-traumatic stress disorder (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13-1.22, p < 0.001), opioid use disorder (AOR 1.14; CI 1.07-1.22, p < 0.001), alcohol use disorder or positive AUDIT-C (AOR 1.34; 95% CI 1.28-1.39, p < 0.001), smoking (AOR 2.58; 95% CI 2.49-2.66, p < 0.001), and other drug use disorders (AOR 1.15; 95% CI 1.03-1.29, p = 0.02) were associated with cannabis use. Positive UDT for amphetamines AOR 1.41; 95% CI 1.26-1.58, p < 0.001), benzodiazepines (AOR 1.41; 95% CI 1.31-1.51, p < 0.001) and cocaine (AOR 2.04; 95% CI 1.75-2.36, p < 0.001) were associated with cannabis positive UDT. CONCLUSIONS: Cannabis use among Veterans prescribed opioids varied by state and by legalization status. Veterans with PTSD and substance use disorders were more likely to have cannabis positive UDT. Opioid-prescribed Veterans using cannabis may benefit from screening for these conditions, referral to treatment, and attention to opioid safety.

Opioid-related Mortality in United States Death Certificate Data: A Quantitative Bias Analysis With Expert Elicitation of Bias Parameters.

BACKGROUND: Opioid-related mortality is an important public health problem in the United States. Incidence estimates rely on death certificate data generated by health care providers and medical examiners. Opioid overdoses may be underreported when other causes of death appear plausible. We applied physician-elicited death certificate bias parameters to quantitative bias analyses assessing potential age-related differential misclassification in US opioid-related mortality estimates. METHODS: We obtained cause-of-death data (US, 2017) from the National Center for Health Statistics and calculated crude opioid-related outpatient death counts by age category (25-54, 55-64, 65+). We elicited beliefs from 10 primary care physicians on sensitivity of opioid-related death classification from death certificates. We summarized elicited sensitivity estimates, calculated plausible specificity values, and applied resulting parameters in a probabilistic bias analysis. RESULTS: Physicians estimated wide sensitivity ranges for classification of opioid-related mortality by death certificates, with lower estimated sensitivities among older age groups. Probabilistic bias analyses adjusting for physician-estimated misclassification indicated 3.1 times more (95% uncertainty interval: 1.2-23.5) opioid-related deaths than the observed death count in the 65+ age group. All age groups had substantial increases in bias-adjusted death counts. CONCLUSIONS: We developed and implemented a feasible method of eliciting physician expert opinion on bias parameters for sensitivity of a medical record-based death indicator and applied findings in quantitative bias analyses adjusting for differential misclassification. Our findings are consistent with the hypothesis that opioid-related mortality rates may be substantially underestimated, particularly among older adults, due to misclassification in cause-of-death data from death certificates.

Design, methods, and recruitment outcomes of the Veterans' Pain Care Organizational Improvement Comparative Effectiveness (VOICE) study.

The Veterans' Pain Care Organizational Improvement Comparative Effectiveness (VOICE) study is a 12-month pragmatic randomized comparative effectiveness trial conducted at ten United States Veterans Affairs (VA) health care sites. The overall goal was to test interventions to improve pain while reducing opioid use among VA patients with moderate-severe chronic pain despite treatment with long-term opioid therapy (LTOT). Aims were 1) to compare lower-intensity telecare collaborative pain management (TCM) versus higher-intensity integrated pain team management (IPT), and 2) to test the option of switching to buprenorphine (versus no option) in a high-dose subgroup. Recruitment challenges included secular trends in opioid prescribing and the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants were recruited over 3.5 years. Of 6966 potentially eligible patients, 4731 (67.9%) were contacted for telephone eligibility interview; of those contacted, 3398 (71.8%) declined participation, 359 (7.6%) were ineligible, 821 (24.2%) enrolled, and 820 (24.1%) were randomized. The most common reason for declining was satisfaction with pain care (n = 731). The most common reason for ineligibility was not having moderate-severe chronic pain (n = 110). Compared with the potentially eligible population, randomized participants were slightly younger, more often female, had similar prescribed opioids, and had similar or higher rates of pain and mental health diagnoses. The enrolled patient number was lower than the original target, but sufficient to power planned analyses. In conclusion, the VOICE trial enrolled a diverse sample similar to the population of VA patients receiving LTOT. Results will add substantially to limited existing evidence for interventions to improve pain while reducing opioid use. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03026790.

Association of a Positive Drug Screening for Cannabis With Mortality and Hospital Visits Among Veterans Affairs Enrollees Prescribed Opioids.

Importance: Cannabis has been proposed as a therapeutic with potential opioid-sparing properties in chronic pain, and its use could theoretically be associated with decreased amounts of opioids used and decreased risk of mortality among individuals prescribed opioids. Objective: To examine the risks associated with cannabis use among adults prescribed opioid analgesic medications. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was conducted among individuals aged 18 years and older who had urine drug screening in 2014 to 2019 and received any prescription opioid in the prior 90 days or long-term opioid therapy (LTOT), defined as more than 84 days of the prior 90 days, through the Veterans Affairs health system. Data were analyzed from November 2020 through March 2022. Exposures: Biologically verified cannabis use from a urine drug screen. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were 90-day and 180-day all-cause mortality. A composite outcome of all-cause emergency department (ED) visits, all-cause hospitalization, or all-cause mortality was a secondary outcome. Weights based on the propensity score were used to reduce confounding, and hazard ratios [HRs] were estimated using Cox proportional hazards regression models. Analyses were conducted among the overall sample of patients who received any prescription opioid in the prior 90 days and were repeated among those who received LTOT. Analyses were repeated among adults aged 65 years and older. Results: Among 297 620 adults treated with opioids, 30 514 individuals used cannabis (mean [SE] age, 57.8 [10.5] years; 28 784 [94.3%] men) and 267 106 adults did not (mean [SE] age, 62.3 [12.3] years; P < .001; 247 684 [92.7%] men; P < .001). Among all patients, cannabis use was not associated with increased all-cause mortality at 90 days (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.92-1.22) or 180 days (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.90-1.10) but was associated with an increased hazard of the composite outcome at 90 days (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.07) and 180 days (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.06). Among 181 096 adults receiving LTOT, cannabis use was not associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality at 90 or 180 days but was associated with an increased hazard of the composite outcome at 90 days (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.09) and 180 days (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.09). Among 77 791 adults aged 65 years and older receiving LTOT, cannabis use was associated with increased 90-day mortality (HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.17-2.04). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that cannabis use among adults receiving opioid analgesic medications was not associated with any change in mortality risk but was associated with a small increased risk of adverse outcomes and that short-term risks were higher among older adults receiving LTOT.

Teaming in Interdisciplinary Chronic Pain Management Interventions in Primary Care: a Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Current pain management recommendations emphasize leveraging interdisciplinary teams. We aimed to identify key features of interdisciplinary team structures and processes associated with improved pain outcomes for patients experiencing chronic pain in primary care settings. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL for randomized studies published after 2009. Included studies had to report patient-reported pain outcomes (e.g., BPI total pain, GCPS pain intensity, RMDQ pain-related disability), include primary care as an intervention setting, and demonstrate some evidence of teamwork or teaming; specifically, they needed to involve at least two clinicians interacting with each other and with patients in an ongoing process over at least two timepoints. We assessed study quality with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. We narratively synthesized intervention team structures and processes, comparing among interventions that reported a clinically meaningful improvement in patient-reported pain outcomes defined by the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). RESULTS: We included 13 total interventions in our review, of which eight reported a clinically meaningful improvement in at least one patient-reported pain outcome. No included studies had an overall high risk of bias. We identified the role of a care manager as a common structural feature of the interventions with some clinical effect on patient-reported pain. The team processes involving clinicians varied across interventions reporting clinically improved pain outcomes. However, when analyzing team processes involving patients, six of the interventions with some clinical effect on pain relied on pre-scheduled phone calls for continuous patient follow-up. DISCUSSION: Our review suggests that interdisciplinary interventions incorporating teamwork and teaming can improve patient-reported pain outcomes in comparison to usual care. Given the current evidence, future interventions might prioritize care managers and mechanisms for patient follow-up to help bridge the gap between clinical guidelines and the implementation of interdisciplinary, team-based chronic pain care.

A Cluster-Randomized Clinical Trial to Decrease Prescription Opioid Misuse: Improving the Safety of Opioid Therapy (ISOT).

BACKGROUND: Interventions to reduce harms related to prescription opioids are needed in primary care settings. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a multicomponent intervention, Improving the safety of opioid therapy (ISOT), is efficacious in reducing prescription opioid harms. DESIGN: Clinician-level, cluster randomized clinical trial. ( ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT02791399) SETTING: Eight primary care clinics at 1 Veterans Affairs health care system. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-five primary care clinicians and 286 patients who were prescribed long-term opioid therapy (LTOT). INTERVENTION: All clinicians participated in a 2-hour educational session on patient-centered care surrounding opioid adherence monitoring and were randomly assigned to education only or ISOT. ISOT is a multicomponent intervention that included a one-time consultation by an external clinician to the patient with monitoring and feedback to clinicians over 12 months. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcomes were changes in risk for prescription opioid misuse (Current Opioid Misuse Measure) and urine drug test results. Secondary outcomes were quality of the clinician-patient relationship, other prescription opioid safety outcomes, changes in clinicians' opioid prescribing characteristics, and a non-inferiority analysis of changes in pain intensity and functioning. KEY RESULTS: ISOT did not decrease risk for prescription opioid misuse (difference between groups = -1.12, p = 0.097), likelihood of an aberrant urine drug test result (difference between groups = -0.04, p=0.401), or measures of the clinician-patient relationship. Participants allocated to ISOT were more likely to discontinue prescription opioids (20.0% versus 8.1%, p = 0.007). ISOT did not worsen participant-reported scores of pain intensity or function. CONCLUSIONS: ISOT did not impact risk for prescription opioid misuse but did lead to increased likelihood of prescription opioid discontinuation. More intensive interventions may be needed to impact treatment outcomes.

The Relationship Between Sexual Assault History and Cervical Cancer Screening Completion Among Women Veterans in the Veterans Health Administration.

Background: Sexual assault affects one in three U.S. women and may have lifelong consequences for women's health, including potential barriers to completing cervical cancer screening and more than twofold higher cervical cancer risk. The objective of this study was to determine whether a history of sexual assault is associated with reduced cervical cancer screening completion among women Veterans. Materials and Methods: We analyzed data from a 2015 survey of women Veterans who use primary care or women's health services at 12 Veterans Health Administration facilities (VA's) in nine states. We linked survey responses with VA electronic health record data and used logistic regression to examine the association of lifetime sexual assault with cervical cancer screening completion within a guideline-concordant interval. Results: The sample included 1049 women, of whom 616 (58.7%) reported lifetime sexual assault. Women with a history of sexual assault were more likely to report a high level of distress related to pelvic examinations, and to report ever delaying a gynecologic examination due to distress. However, in the final adjusted model, lifetime sexual assault was not significantly associated with reduced odds of cervical cancer screening completion (OR 1.35, 95% CI 0.93-1.97). Conclusions: Contrary to our expectations, sexual assault was not significantly associated with gaps in cervical cancer screening completion. Three- to five-year screening intervals may provide sufficient time to complete screening, despite barriers. Trauma-sensitive care practices promoted in the VA may allow women to overcome the distress and discomfort of pelvic examinations to complete needed screening. ClinicalTrials.gov (#NCT02039856).

Impact of transitioning from long-term to intermittent opioid therapy on the development of opioid-related adverse outcomes: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Increasing pressures exist to reduce or discontinue opioid use among patients currently on long-term opioid therapy (LTOT). It is essential to understand the potential effects of opioid reduction. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was conducted among veterans with chronic pain and on LTOT. Using 1:1 propensity score-matched samples of veterans switching to intermittent opioid therapy and those continuing LTOT, we examined the development of subsequent substance use disorders (SUD composite; individual SUD types: opioid, non-opioid drug, and alcohol use disorders) and opioid-related adverse outcomes (ORAO composite; individual ORAO types: accidents resulting in wounds/injuries, opioid-related and alcohol/non-opioid medication-related accidents and overdoses, self-inflicted and violence-related injuries). Sensitivity analyses were conducted using logistic regression with stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting (SIPTW) and instrumental variable (IV) models. RESULTS: A total of 29,293 veterans switching to intermittent therapy were matched to veterans continuing LTOT. With matched samples, no differences were found in composite SUDs and ORAOs between the groups. With SIPTW, veterans switching to intermittent opioid therapy had higher odds of composite SUDs and ORAOs (SUDs aOR=1.12, 95%CI: 1.07,1.17; ORAOs aOR=1.05, 95%CI:1.00,1.09). IV models found lower risks for composite SUDs and ORAOs among veterans switching to intermittent opioid therapy (SUDs: ß = -0.38, 95%CI:-0.63,-0.13; ORAOs: ß = -0.27, 95%CI:-0.50,-0.04). CONCLUSIONS: There were no consistent associations between transitioning patients from LTOT to intermittent opioid therapy and the risk of SUDs and ORAOs.

Do Urine Drug Tests Reveal Substance Misuse Among Patients Prescribed Opioids for Chronic Pain?

BACKGROUND: Urine drug testing (UDT) is a recommended risk mitigation strategy for patients prescribed opioids for chronic pain, but evidence that UDT supports identification of substance misuse is limited. OBJECTIVE: Identify the prevalence of UDT results that may identify substance misuse, including diversion, among patients prescribed opioids for chronic pain. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SUBJECTS: Patients (n=638) receiving opioids for chronic pain who had one or more UDTs, examining up to eight substances per sample, during a one 1-year period. MAIN MEASURES: Experts adjudicated the clinical concern that UDT results suggest substance misuse or diversion as not concerning, uncertain, or concerning. KEY RESULTS: Of 638 patients, 48% were female and 49% were over age 55 years. Patients had a median of three UDTs during the intervention year. We identified 37% of patients (235/638) with ≥1 concerning UDT and a further 35% (222/638) having ≥1 uncertain UDT. We found concerning UDTs due to non-detection of a prescribed substance in 24% (156/638) of patients and detection of a non-prescribed substance in 23% (147/638). Compared to patients over 65 years, those aged 18-34 years were more likely to have concerning UDT results with an adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of 4.8 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.9-12.5). Patients with mental health diagnoses (AOR 1.6 [95% CI 1.1-2.3]) and substance use diagnoses (AOR 2.3 [95% CI 1.5-3.7]) were more likely to have a concerning UDT result. CONCLUSIONS: Expert adjudication of UDT results identified clinical concern for substance misuse in 37% of patients receiving opioids for chronic pain. Further research is needed to determine if UDTs impact clinical practice or patient-related outcomes.

Association between discontinuing chronic opioid therapy and newly diagnosed substance use disorders, accidents, self-inflicted injuries and drug overdoses within the prescribers' health care system: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Prescribers are commonly confronted with discontinuing opioid therapy among patients prescribed chronic opioid therapy (COT). This study aimed to measure the association between discontinuing COT and diagnoses of substance use disorders (SUDs) and opioid-related adverse outcomes (AOs). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: United States Veterans Healthcare Administration. PARTICIPANTS: Veterans with chronic pain on COT who discontinued opioid therapy were compared with those continuing COT using data from fiscal years 2009 to 2015. MEASUREMENTS: Newly diagnosed substance use disorders (SUD composite; individual types: opioid, non-opioid drug and alcohol use disorders) and opioid-related adverse outcomes (AO composite; individual types: accidents resulting in wounds/injuries, opioid-related accidents/overdoses, alcohol and non-opioid medication-related accidents/overdoses, self-inflicted injuries and violence-related injuries) were evaluated. Primary analyses were conducted using 1:1 matching of discontinuers with those continuing COT based on propensity score and index date (±180-day window). Sensitivity analyses were conducted using logistic regressions with stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting (SIPTW) and instrumental variable (IV) models. FINDINGS: A total of 15 695 (75.4%) and 17 337 (76.6%) discontinuers were matched with those continuing COT among the cohorts testing SUD and AO development respectively. In the primary propensity score matched analyses, the composite SUD outcome was not different between discontinuers and those continuing COT (OR = 0.932, 95% CI = 0.850, 1.022). The composite AO outcome was lower among discontinuers (OR = 0.660, 95% CI = 0.623, 0.699) compared with those continuing COT. SIPTW analyses found lower SUD (OR = 0.789, 95% CI = 0.743, 0.837), and AO (OR = 0.660, 95% CI = 0.623, 0.699) rates among discontinuers. IV models found mixed and sometimes contradictory results. CONCLUSIONS: Discontinuing patients from chronic opioid therapy appears to be associated with decreased diagnoses for opioid-related adverse outcomes. The association with substance use disorders appears to be inconclusive.