Efficacy of a Pain Self-Management Intervention Tailored to People With HIV: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Chronic pain is a common condition for which efficacious interventions tailored to highly affected populations are urgently needed. People with HIV have a high prevalence of chronic pain and share phenotypic similarities with other highly affected populations. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of a behavioral pain self-management intervention called Skills to Manage Pain (STOMP) compared to enhanced usual care (EUC). Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial included adults with HIV who experienced at least moderate chronic pain for 3 months or more. The study was set at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill large medical centers from August 2019 to September 2022. Intervention: STOMP combined 1-on-1 skill-building sessions delivered by staff interventionists with group sessions co-led by peer interventionists. The EUC control group received the STOMP manual without any 1-on-1 or group instructional sessions. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was pain severity and the impact of pain on function, measured by the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) summary score. The primary a priori hypothesis was that STOMP would be associated with a decreased BPI in people with HIV compared to EUC. Results: Among 407 individuals screened, 278 were randomized to STOMP intervention (n = 139) or EUC control group (n = 139). Among the 278 people with HIV who were randomized, the mean (SD) age was 53.5 (10.0) years; 126 (45.0%) identified as female, 146 (53.0%) identified as male, 6 (2.0%) identified as transgender female. Of the 6 possible 1-on-1 sessions, participants attended a mean (SD) of 2.9 (2.5) sessions. Of the 6 possible group sessions, participants attended a mean (SD) of 2.4 (2.1) sessions. Immediately after the intervention compared to EUC, STOMP was associated with a statistically significant mean difference for the primary outcome, BPI total score: -1.25 points (95% CI, -1.71 to -0.78 points; P < .001). Three months after the intervention, the mean difference in BPI total score remained statistically significant, favoring the STOMP intervention -0.62 points (95% CI, -1.09 to -0.14 points; P = .01). Conclusion and Relevance: The findings of this randomized clinical trial support the efficaciousness of STOMP as an intervention for chronic pain in people with HIV. Future research will include implementation studies and work to understand the optimal delivery of the intervention. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03692611.

Misuse of Prescribed and Nonprescribed Substances Among U.S. Cancer Survivors.

BACKGROUND: Substance misuse is common among cancer survivors and can negatively impact cancer outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study using National Survey on Drug Use and Health data for 2015 to 2020. We included adult respondents with a history of solid tumor cancer. We calculated the weighted prevalence and corresponding SEs (both expressed as percentages) of substance (alcohol, opioid, sedative, stimulant, other) misuse for respondents with any history of solid tumor cancer and, in secondary analyses, respondents diagnosed with cancer in the prior 12 months. RESULTS: The study included 6,101 respondents with any history of cancer, 1,437 diagnosed in the prior 12 months. Alcohol was the most commonly misused substance. The average prevalence of alcohol misuse was 14.4% (SE 0.60%) across cancer types; it was markedly more common among people with a history or cervical (24.2% [3.0%]) or head and neck cancer (27.4% [7.1%]). The next most common form of substance misuse was opioid misuse (average prevalence: 2.7% [0.25%]). As with alcohol misuse, the prevalence of opioid misuse was higher among those with a lifetime history of cervical cancer (5% [1%]) or head and neck cancer (5% [3%]). Results were generally consistent among cancer survivors diagnosed in the prior 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: There is a clear opportunity to address substance misuse-particularly alcohol misuse-among cancer survivors. Such efforts should focus on populations with a high prevalence of substance misuse (e.g., cervical and head and neck cancer survivors) and have strong potential to improve cancer-specific and overall health outcomes.

A Longitudinal Multivariable Analysis: State Policies and Opioid Dispensing in Medicare Beneficiaries Undergoing Surgery.

BACKGROUND: States have implemented policies to decrease clinically unnecessary opioid prescribing, but few studies have examined how state policies affect opioid dispensing rate trends for surgical patients. OBJECTIVE: To examine trends in the perioperative opioid dispensing rates for fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries and the effects of select state policies. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective cohort study using 2006 to 2018 Medicare claims data for individuals undergoing surgical procedures for which opioid analgesic treatment is common. EXPOSURES: State policies mandating prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP; PDMP policies) use, initial opioid prescription duration limit (duration limit policies), and mandated continuing medical education (CME; CME pain policies) on pain management. MAIN MEASURES: Opioid dispensing rates, days' supply, and the daily morphine milligram equivalent dose (MMED). KEY RESULTS: The percentage of Medicare beneficiaries dispensed opioids in the perioperative period increased from 2007 to 2018; MMED and days' supply decreased over the same period, with significant variation by age, sex, and race. None of the three state policies affected the likelihood of Medicare beneficiaries being dispensed perioperative opioids. However, CME pain policies and duration limit policies were associated with decreased days' supply and decreased MMED in the several years following implementation, respectively. CONCLUSION: While we observed a slight increase in the rate of Medicare beneficiaries dispensed opioids perioperatively and a substantial decrease in MMED and days' supply for those receiving opioids, state policies examined had relatively modest effects on the main measures. Our findings suggest that these state policies may have a limited impact on opioid dispensing for a patient population that is commonly dispensed opioid analgesics to help control surgical pain, and as a result may have little direct effect on clinical outcomes for this population. Changes in opioid dispensing for this population may be the result of broader societal trends than such state policies.

Study Protocol for Pain Self-Management and Patient-Oriented Buprenorphine Dosing for Pain and Retention in Office-Based Opioid Treatment: A Hybrid Type 1, 2 × 2 Factorial Randomized Controlled Trial.

Chronic pain is a significant factor for patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) contributing to suboptimal retention in buprenorphine treatment, which is a crucial predictor of long-term health outcomes. This study aims to address the critical need for effective interventions targeting chronic pain management within office-based opioid treatment (OBOT) programs. We are conducting a multisite, hybrid type 1, 2 × 2 factorial randomized clinical trial to determine the effectiveness of 2 novel interventions, pain self-management (PSM) and patient-oriented buprenorphine dosing (POD), to decrease pain interference and improve retention in buprenorphine treatment. PSM, a manualized and customizable approach delivered through individual and peer-led group sessions, aims to decrease pain-related symptoms and quality of life. POD involves split dosing of buprenorphine to extend the duration of analgesia to better match its duration of efficacy at managing OUD symptoms, leading to improved retention in buprenorphine treatment. Eligible participants will be randomized into 1 of 4 groups: (1) PSM + POD, (2) PSM + Standard Buprenorphine Dosing, (3) Usual Care + POD, or (4) Usual Care + Standard Buprenorphine Dosing. Usual Care refers to usual care for chronic pain and Standard Buprenorphine Dosing refers to the participant's current dosing regimen. Secondary objectives encompass overall pain reduction, decreased opioid use, improved pain symptom management, and exploration of implementation strategies. The supplemental approved protocol provides comprehensive insights into the procedures and variables being investigated. As part of the HEAL Initiative®-funded Integrative Management of Chronic Pain and OUD for Whole Recovery (IMPOWR) network, this study aims to fill gaps in behavioral and medication treatments for individuals with co-occurring chronic pain and OUDs, improving pain management and retention in care. Successful outcomes from this trial may inform future larger trials, offering essential evidence for implementation considerations and reimbursement decisions.

Association of Opioid Use Disorder Diagnosis with Management of Acute Low Back Pain: A Medicare Retrospective Cohort Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Practice guidelines recommend nonpharmacologic and nonopioid therapies as first-line pain treatment for acute pain. However, little is known about their utilization generally and among individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) for whom opioid and other pharmacologic therapies carry greater risk of harm. OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between a pre-existing OUD diagnosis and treatment of acute low back pain (aLBP). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using 2016-2019 Medicare data. PARTICIPANTS: Fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries with a new episode of aLBP. MAIN MEASURES: The main independent variable was OUD diagnosis measured prior to the first LBP claim (i.e., index date). Using multivariable logistic regressions, we assessed the following outcomes measured within 30 days of the index date: (1) nonpharmacologic therapies (physical therapy and/or chiropractic care), and (2) prescription opioids. Among opioid recipients, we further assessed opioid dose and co-prescription of gabapentin. Analyses were conducted overall and stratified by receipt of physical therapy, chiropractic care, opioid fills, or gabapentin fills during the 6 months before the index date. KEY RESULTS: We identified 1,263,188 beneficiaries with aLBP, of whom 3.0% had OUD. Two-thirds (65.8%) did not receive pain treatments of interest at baseline. Overall, nonpharmacologic therapy receipt was less prevalent and opioid and nonopioid pharmacologic therapies were more common among beneficiaries with OUD than those without OUD. Beneficiaries with OUD had lower odds of receiving nonpharmacologic therapies (aOR = 0.62, 99%CI = 0.58-0.65) and higher odds of prescription opioid receipt (aOR = 2.24, 99%CI = 2.17-2.32). OUD also was significantly associated with increased odds of opioid doses ≥ 90 morphine milligram equivalents/day (aOR = 2.43, 99%CI = 2.30-2.56) and co-prescription of gabapentin (aOR = 1.15, 99%CI = 1.09-1.22). Similar associations were observed in stratified groups though magnitudes differed. CONCLUSIONS: Medicare beneficiaries with aLBP and OUD underutilized nonpharmacologic pain therapies and commonly received opioids at high doses and with gabapentin. Complementing the promulgation of practice guidelines with implementation science could improve the uptake of evidence-based nonpharmacologic therapies for aLBP.

Priorities for HIV and chronic pain research: results from a survey of individuals with lived experience.

The Global Task Force on Chronic Pain in HIV published seven research priorities in the field of HIV-associated chronic pain in 2019: (1) causes; (2) management; (3) treatment individualization and integration with addiction treatment; (4) mental and social health factors; (5) prevalence; (6) treatment cost effectiveness; and (7) prevention. The current study used a web-based survey to determine whether the research topics were aligned with the priorities of adults with lived experiences of HIV and chronic pain. We also collected information about respondents' own pain and treatment experiences. We received 311 survey responses from mostly US-based respondents. Most respondents reported longstanding, moderate to severe, multisite pain, commonly accompanied by symptoms of anxiety and/or depression. The median number of pain treatments tried was 10 (IQR = 8, 13), with medications and exercise being the most common modalities, and opioids being viewed as the most helpful. Over 80% of respondents considered all research topics either "extremely important" or "very important". Research topic #2, which focused on optimizing management of pain in people with HIV, was accorded the greatest importance by respondents. These findings suggest good alignment between the priorities of researchers and US-based people with lived experience of HIV-associated chronic pain.

Benefits, Harms, and Stakeholder Perspectives Regarding Opioid Therapy for Pain in Individuals With Metastatic Cancer: Protocol for a Descriptive Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Opioids are a key component of pain management among patients with metastatic cancer pain. However, the evidence base available to guide opioid-related decision-making in individuals with advanced cancer is limited. Patients with advanced cancer or cancer that is unlikely to be cured frequently experience pain. Opioids are a key component of pain management among patients with metastatic cancer pain. Many individuals with advanced cancer are now living long enough to experience opioid-related harm. Emerging evidence from chronic noncancer pain literature suggests that longer-term opioid therapy may have limited benefits for pain and function, and opioid-related harms are also a major concern. However, whether these benefits and harms of opioids apply to patients with cancer-related pain is unknown. OBJECTIVE: This manuscript outlines the protocol for the "Opioid Therapy for Pain in Individuals With Metastatic Cancer: The Benefits, Harms, and Stakeholder Perspectives (BEST) Study." The study aims to better understand opioid decision-making in patients with advanced cancer, along with opioid benefits and harms, through prospective examination of patients' pain experiences and opioid side effects and understanding the decision-making by patients, care partners, and clinicians. METHODS: This is a multicenter, prospective cohort study that aims to enroll 630 patients with advanced cancer, 20 care partners, and 20 clinicians (670 total participants). Patient participants must have an advanced solid cancer diagnosis, defined by the American Cancer Society as cancer that is unlikely to be cured. We will recruit patient participants within 12 weeks after diagnosis so that we can understand opioid benefits, harms, and perspectives on opioid decision-making throughout the course of their advanced cancer (up to 2 years). We will also specifically elicit information regarding long-term opioid use (ie, opioids for ≥90 consecutive days) and exclude patients on long-term opioid therapy before an advanced cancer diagnosis. Lived-experience perspectives related to opioid use in those with advanced cancer will be captured by qualitative interviews with a subset of patients, clinicians, and care partners. Our data collection will be grounded in a behavioral decision research approach that will allow us to develop future interventions to inform opioid-related decision-making for patients with metastatic cancer. RESULTS: Data collection began in October 2022 and is anticipated to end by November 2024. CONCLUSIONS: Upon successful execution of our study protocol, we anticipate the development of a comprehensive evidence base on opioid therapy in individuals with advanced cancer guided by the behavioral decision research framework. The information gained from this study will be used to guide interventions to facilitate opioid decisions among patients, clinicians, and care partners. Given the limited evidence base about opioid therapy in people with cancer, we envision this study will have significant real-world implications for cancer-related pain management and opioid-related clinical decision-making. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/54953.

Substance Use Disorders Among US Adult Cancer Survivors.

Importance: Some individuals are predisposed to cancer based on their substance use history, and others may use substances to manage cancer-related symptoms. Yet the intersection of substance use disorder (SUD) and cancer is understudied. Because SUD may affect and be affected by cancer care, it is important to identify cancer populations with a high prevalence of SUD, with the goal of guiding attention and resources toward groups and settings where interventions may be needed. Objective: To describe the cancer type-specific prevalence of SUD among adult cancer survivors. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used data from the annually administered National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) for 2015 through 2020 to identify adults with a history of solid tumor cancer. Substance use disorder was defined as meeting at least 1 of 4 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition) criteria for abuse or at least 3 of 6 criteria for dependence. Main Outcomes and Measures: Per NSDUH guidelines, we made adjustments to analysis weights by dividing weights provided in the pooled NSDUH data sets by the number of years of combined data (eg, 6 for 2015-2020). The weighted prevalence and corresponding SEs (both expressed as percentages) of active SUD (ie, within the past 12 months) were calculated for respondents with any lifetime history of cancer and, in secondary analyses, respondents diagnosed with cancer within 12 months prior to taking the survey. Data were analyzed from July 2022 to June 2023. Results: This study included data from 6101 adult cancer survivors (56.91% were aged 65 years or older and 61.63% were female). Among lifetime cancer survivors, the prevalence of active SUD was 3.83% (SE, 0.32%). Substance use disorder was most prevalent in survivors of head and neck cancer (including mouth, tongue, lip, throat, and pharyngeal cancers; 9.36% [SE, 2.47%]), esophageal and gastric cancer (9.42% [SE, 5.51%]), cervical cancer (6.24% [SE, 1.41%]), and melanoma (6.20% [SE, 1.34%]). Alcohol use disorder was the most common SUD (2.78% [SE, 0.26%]) overall and in survivors of head and neck cancer, cervical cancer, and melanoma. In survivors of esophageal and gastric cancers, cannabis use disorder was the most prevalent SUD (9.42% [SE, 5.51%]). Among respondents diagnosed with cancer in the past 12 months, the overall prevalence of active SUD was similar to that in the lifetime cancer survivor cohort (3.81% [SE, 0.74%]). However, active SUD prevalence was higher in head and neck (18.73% [SE, 10.56%]) and cervical cancer survivors (15.70% [SE, 5.35%]). The distribution of specific SUDs was different compared with that in the lifetime cancer survivor cohort. For example, in recently diagnosed head and neck cancer survivors, sedative use disorder was the most common SUD (9.81% [SE, 9.17%]). Conclusions and Relevance: Findings of this study suggest that SUD prevalence is higher among survivors of certain types of cancer; this information could be used to identify cancer survivors who may benefit from integrated cancer and SUD care. Future efforts to understand and address the needs of adult cancer survivors with comorbid SUD should prioritize cancer populations in which SUD prevalence is high.

Caring for Patients With Opioid Misuse or Substance Use Disorders in Hospice: A National Survey.

Background: Opioid misuse and substance use disorders (SUDs) including opioid use disorder (OUD) are common and negatively impact quality of life. Hospice clinicians' experiences with these conditions have not been well described. Objectives: We sought to explore hospice clinicians' knowledge, practices, and comfort caring for patients with opioid misuse (e.g., a pattern of unsanctioned opioid use escalation, or concurrent illicit substance use) and SUDs. Design: We recruited hospice clinicians in the United States via national hospice and palliative care organizations to complete an online survey designed by the study authors and pilot tested with an interdisciplinary group of current/former hospice clinicians. Results: One hundred seventy-five clinicians (40% nurses, 40% physicians, 16% nurse practitioners) responded to the survey; most had cared for two or more hospice patients with opioid misuse or SUD in the past month. The majority felt confident identifying opioid misuse (94%) and taking SUD histories (79%). Most (62%) felt it is their role to treat hospice patients for SUD, though 56% lacked comfort in using buprenorphine for OUD treatment. While the majority felt it is their role to treat pain in hospice patients with SUDs (94%) and that hospice can help patients with SUDs (94%), many were not comfortable managing pain in patients taking buprenorphine (45%) or naltrexone (49%) for SUDs. Most felt comfortable managing pain in patients taking methadone for SUD (73%). Conclusions: Opioid misuse and SUD are common in hospice. Though clinicians are comfortable taking relevant histories, they feel less comfortable managing patients' opioid misuse or SUD, or these patients' pain.

Association of Opioid Use Disorder Diagnosis With Use of Physical Therapy and Chiropractic Care Among Chronic Low Back Pain Patients: A Group-Based Trajectory Analysis.

Nonpharmacologic approaches are recommended as first-line treatment for chronic pain, and their importance is heightened among individuals with co-occurring opioid use disorder (OUD), in whom opioid therapies may be particularly detrimental. Our objectives were to assess the receipt and trajectories of nonpharmacologic pain treatment and determine the association of OUD diagnosis with these trajectories. This retrospective cohort study used Medicare claims data from 2016 to 2018 and applied group-based trajectory models to identify distinct patterns of physical therapy (PT) or chiropractic care treatment over the 12 months following a new episode of chronic low back pain. We used logistic regression models to estimate the association of co-occurring OUD with group membership in PT and chiropractic trajectories. Our sample comprised 607,729 beneficiaries at least 18 years of age, of whom 11.4% had a diagnosis of OUD. The 12-month prevalence of PT and chiropractic treatment receipt was 24.7% and 27.1%, respectively, and lower among Medicare beneficiaries with co-occurring OUD (PT: 14.6%; chiropractic: 6.8%). The final models identified 3 distinct trajectories each for PT (no/little use [76.6% of sample], delayed and increasing use [8.2%], and early and declining use [15.2%]); and chiropractic (no/little use [75.0% of sample], early and declining use [17.3%], and early and sustained use [7.7%]). People with OUD were more likely to belong in trajectories with little/no PT or chiropractic care as compared to other trajectories. The findings indicate that people with co-occurring chronic pain and OUD often do not receive early or any nonpharmacologic pain therapies as recommended by practice guidelines. PERSPECTIVE: PT and chiropractic care use were low overall and even lower among Medicare beneficiaries with co-occurring OUD compared with those without OUD. As updated guidelines on pain management are promulgated, targeted interventions (eg, insurance policy, provider, and patient education) are needed to ensure equitable access to guideline-recommended pain therapies.

Nicotine Metabolite Ratio Decreases After Switching Off Efavirenz-Based Therapy in People With HIV Who Smoke.

Rates of cigarette smoking in people with HIV (PWH) are two to three times higher than in people without HIV. Nicotine is metabolized by CYP2A6 and the nicotine metabolite ratio (NMR; 3-hydroxycotinine/cotinine) is a measure of nicotine clearance. Higher NMR has been observed in PWH and is associated with lower quit rates. Efavirenz, a mainstay antiretroviral therapy (ART) globally, partially upregulates its own metabolism through CYP2A6. We hypothesized that efavirenz also upregulates nicotine metabolism by CYP2A6, resulting in a higher NMR, and switching to non-efavirenz ART would decrease the NMR, potentially leading to improved quit rates. We compared the NMR during and after efavirenz use among PWH in a longitudinal, multisite cohort. Eligibility criteria included: (i) active cigarette smoking, (ii) ART switched from efavirenz-based to non-efavirenz-based regimen, (iii) plasma available at pre- and post-ART switch, and (iv) viral suppression during study period. Plasma cotinine and 3-hydroxycotinine were measured by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. T-tests compared the NMR on and off efavirenz. Samples were collected between 2010 and 2019 in 72 PWH. The mean NMR difference after switching to a non-efavirenz-based regimen was -0.24 (SD: 0.37, P < 0.001); 44 PWH had at least a 0.1 decrease in NMR. Effect modification by race was present; Black PWH had a larger mean decrease. Our findings suggest that previously observed higher NMR among PWH may be due to direct pharmacologic effects of ART. Assessing the effect of ART on the NMR suggests that avoiding nicotine metabolism inducers could potentially increase quit rates.

Managing Chronic Pain in Cancer Survivorship: Communication Challenges and Opportunities as Described by Cancer Survivors.

OBJECTIVES: Many cancer survivors experience chronic pain after completing curative-intent treatment. Based on available data, chronic pain may be undertreated in this context; however, little is known about cancer survivors' experiences with clinical management of chronic pain. The purpose of this study was to better understand cancer survivors' pain management experiences after curative-intent treatment. METHODS: We conducted 13 semi-structured interviews with a convenience sample of cancer survivors who had completed treatment for stage I-III breast, head/neck, lung or colorectal cancer. We used a thematic approach to qualitative data analysis. RESULTS: Participants described that chronic pain often goes unrecognized by their providers, potentially due to limitations in how pain is assessed clinically and the tendency of both cancer survivors and providers to minimize or invalidate the pain experience. To improve communication, participants suggested that providers ask more open-ended questions about their pain, help them to establish functional goals, and provide patients with options for pain management. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: This study demonstrates the importance of provider-initiated communication around pain management for cancer survivors to make them feel more supported in their care. Communication and shared decision-making interventions may improve cancer survivor-provider communication around chronic pain management, addressing an important gap in survivorship care.

Treatment Patterns and Population Characteristics of Nonpharmacological Management of Chronic Pain in the United States' Medicare Population: A Scoping Review.

Background and Objectives: Clinical practice guidelines recommend noninvasive nonpharmacological pain therapies; however, reviews that assess the literature pertaining to nonpharmacological pain management among older adults and people with long-term disabilities who are disproportionately affected by pain are lacking. This scoping review aimed to systematically map and characterize the existing studies about the receipt of noninvasive, nonpharmacological pain therapies by Medicare beneficiaries. Research Design and Methods: We conducted a literature search in MEDLINE (PubMed), CINAHL (EBSCO), SocINDEX (EBSCO), Cochrane Library, Web of Science citation indices, and various sources of gray literature. The initial search was conducted on November 2, 2021, and updated on March 9, 2022. Two independent reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and full texts for inclusion and extracted the characteristics of the studies, studied populations, and nonpharmacological pain therapies. Data were summarized using tabular and narrative formats. Results: The final review included 33 studies. Of these, 24 were quantitative, 7 were qualitative, and 2 were mixed-methods studies. Of 32 studies that focused on Medicare beneficiaries, 10 did not specify the Medicare type, and all but one of the remaining studies were restricted to fee-for-service enrollees. Back and neck pain and arthritis were the most commonly studied pain types. Chiropractic care (n = 19) and physical therapy (n = 17) appeared frequently among included studies. The frequency and/or duration of nonpharmacological treatment were mentioned in 13 studies. Trends in the utilization of nonpharmacological pain therapies were assessed in 6 studies but none of these studies went beyond 2008. Discussion and Implications: This scoping review found that manipulative therapies, mainly chiropractic, have been the most widely studied approaches for nonpharmacological pain management in the Medicare population. The review also identified the need for future research that updates trend data and addresses contemporary issues such as rising Medicare Advantage enrollment and promulgation of practice guidelines for pain management.

Dispensary Staff Perceptions About the Benefits, Risks, and Safety of Cannabis for Medical Purposes.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic use of cannabis is common in the United States (up to 18.7% of Americans aged ≥12), and dispensaries in the US are proliferating rapidly. However, the efficacy profile of medical cannabis is unclear, and customers often rely on dispensary staff for purchasing decisions. The objective was to describe cannabis dispensary staff perceptions of medical cannabis benefits and risks, as well as its safety in high-risk populations. METHODS: Online Survey study conducted using Qualtrics from February 13, 2020 to October 2, 2020 with a national sample of dispensary staff who reportedinteracting with customers in a cannabis dispensary selling tetrahydrocannabinol-containing products. Participants were queried about benefits ("helpfulness") and risks ("worry") about cannabis for a variety of medical conditions, and safety in older adults and pregnant women on a five-point Likert scale. These results were then collapsed into three categories including "neutral" (3/5). "I don't know" (uncertainty) was a response option for helpfulness and safety. RESULTS: Participants (n = 434) were from 29 states and included patient-facing dispensary staff (40%); managers (32%); pharmacists (13%); and physicians, nurse practitioners, or physician assistants (5%). Over 80% of participants perceived cannabis as helpful for post-traumatic stress disorder (88.7%), epilepsy (85.3%) and cancer (83.4%). Generally, participants were not concerned about potential cannabis risks, including increased use of illicit drugs (76.3%), decreases in intelligence (74.4%), disrupted sleep (71.7%), and new/worsening health problems from medical cannabis use (70.7%). Cannabis was considered safe in older adults by 81.3% of participants, though there was much less consensus on safety in pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS: Cannabis dispensary staff generally view medical cannabis as beneficial and low-risk. However, improvements in dispensary staff training, an increased role for certifying clinicians, and interventions to reduce dispensary staff concerns (e.g., cost, judgment) may improve evidence-based staff recommendations to patients seeking medical cannabis.

Racial and Ethnic Differences in Receipt of Nonpharmacologic Care for Chronic Low Back Pain Among Medicare Beneficiaries With OUD.

Importance: Nonpharmacologic treatments are important for managing chronic pain among persons with opioid use disorder (OUD), for whom opioid and other pharmacologic therapies may be particularly harmful. Racial and ethnic minority individuals with chronic pain and OUD are vulnerable to suboptimal pain management due to systemic inequities and structural racism, highlighting the need to understand their receipt of guideline-recommended nonpharmacologic pain therapies, including physical therapy (PT) and chiropractic care. Objective: To assess differences across racial and ethnic groups in receipt of PT or chiropractic care for chronic low back pain (CLBP) among persons with comorbid OUD. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used a 20% random sample of national Medicare administrative data from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2018, to identify fee-for-service community-dwelling beneficiaries with a new episode of CLBP and comorbid OUD. Data were analyzed from March 1, 2022, to July 30, 2023. Exposures: Race and ethnicity as a social construct, categorized as American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, Black or African American, Hispanic, non-Hispanic White, and unknown or other. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were receipt of PT or chiropractic care within 3 months of CLBP diagnosis. The time (in days) to receiving these treatments was also assessed. Results: Among 69 362 Medicare beneficiaries analyzed, the median age was 60.0 years (IQR, 51.5-68.7 years) and 42 042 (60.6%) were female. A total of 745 beneficiaries (1.1%) were American Indian or Alaska Native; 444 (0.6%), Asian or Pacific Islander; 9822 (14.2%), Black or African American; 4124 (5.9%), Hispanic; 53 377 (77.0%); non-Hispanic White; and 850 (1.2%), other or unknown race. Of all beneficiaries, 7104 (10.2%) received any PT or chiropractic care 3 months after a new CLBP episode. After adjustment, Black or African American (adjusted odds ratio, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.39-0.55) and Hispanic (adjusted odds ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.43-0.67) persons had lower odds of receiving chiropractic care within 3 months of CLBP diagnosis compared with non-Hispanic White persons. Median time to chiropractic care was longest for American Indian or Alaska Native (median, 8.5 days [IQR, 0-44.0 days]) and Black or African American (median, 7.0 days [IQR, 0-42.0 days]) persons and shortest for Asian or Pacific Islander persons (median, 0 days [IQR, 0-6.0 days]). No significant racial and ethnic differences were observed for PT. Conclusions and Relevance: In this retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries with comorbid CLBP and OUD, receipt of PT and chiropractic care was low overall and lower across most racial and ethnic minority groups compared with non-Hispanic White persons. The findings underscore the need to address inequities in guideline-concordant pain management, particularly among Black or African American and Hispanic persons with OUD.

Expert consensus-based guidance on approaches to opioid management in individuals with advanced cancer-related pain and nonmedical stimulant use.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians treating cancer-related pain with opioids regularly encounter nonmedical stimulant use (i.e., methamphetamine, cocaine), yet there is little evidence-based management guidance. The aim of the study is to identify expert consensus on opioid management strategies for an individual with advanced cancer and cancer-related pain with nonmedical stimulant use according to prognosis. METHODS: The authors conducted two modified Delphi panels with palliative care and addiction experts. In Panel A, the patient's prognosis was weeks to months and in Panel B the prognosis was months to years. Experts reviewed, rated, and commented on the case using a 9-point Likert scale from 1 (very inappropriate) to 9 (very appropriate) and explained their responses. The authors applied the three-step analytical approach outlined in the RAND/UCLA to determine consensus and level of clinical appropriateness of management strategies. To better conceptualize the quantitative results, they thematically analyzed and coded participant comments. RESULTS: Consensus was achieved for all management strategies. The 120 Experts were mostly women (47 [62%]), White (94 [78%]), and physicians (115 [96%]). For a patient with cancer-related and nonmedical stimulant use, regardless of prognosis, it was deemed appropriate to continue opioids, increase monitoring, and avoid opioid tapering. Buprenorphine/naloxone transition was inappropriate for a patient with a short prognosis and of uncertain appropriateness for a patient with a longer prognosis. CONCLUSION: Study findings provide urgently needed consensus-based guidance for clinicians managing cancer-related pain in the context of stimulant use and highlight a critical need to develop management strategies to address stimulant use disorder in people with cancer. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Among palliative care and addiction experts, regardless of prognosis, it was deemed appropriate to continue opioids, increase monitoring, and avoid opioid tapering in the context of cancer-related pain and nonmedical stimulant use. Buprenorphine/naloxone transition as a harm reduction measure was inappropriate for a patient with a short prognosis and of uncertain appropriateness for a patient with a longer prognosis.

"I Just Want You to Hear That Term": Characterizing Language Used in Fetal Cardiology Consultations.

The way clinicians communicate with parents during pregnancy about congenital heart disease (CHD) can significantly influence parental understanding of and psychological response to the diagnosis. A necessary first step to improving communication used in fetal cardiology consultations is to understand and describe the language currently used, which this paper aims to do. Nineteen initial fetal cardiology consultations with parents were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded by two independent coders. A codebook was inductively developed and applied to all transcripts. The finalized coding was used to characterize fetal cardiologists' language. We identified four discourse styles employed in fetal cardiology consultations: small talk, medical, plain, and person-centered. Plain language was used to define and emphasize the meaning of medical language. Person-centered language was used to emphasize the baby as a whole person. Each consultation included all four discourse styles, with plain and medical used most frequently. Person-centered was used less frequently and mostly occurred near the end of the encounters; whether this is the ideal balance of discourse styles is unknown. Clinicians also used person-centered language (as opposed to disease-centered language), which is recommended by medical societies. Future studies should investigate the ideal balance of discourse styles and the effects of clinician discourse styles on family outcomes, including parents' decision-making, psychological adjustment, and quality of life.

Cannabis dispensary staff approaches to counseling on potential contraindications to cannabis use: insights from a national self-report survey.

BACKGROUND: Legal cannabis is available in more than half of the United States. Health care professionals (HCPs) rarely give recommendations on dosing or safety of cannabis due to limits imposed by policy and lack of knowledge. Customer-facing cannabis dispensary staff, including clinicians (pharmacists, nurses, physician's assistants), communicate these recommendations in the absence of HCP recommendations. Little is known about how dispensary staff approach individuals with complex medical and psychiatric comorbidities. Using responses from a national survey, we describe how cannabis dispensary staff counsel customers with medical and psychiatric comorbidities on cannabis use and examine whether state-specific cannabis policy is associated with advice given to customers. METHODS: National, cross-sectional online survey study from February 13, 2020 to October 2, 2020 of dispensary staff at dispensaries that sell delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol containing products. Measures include responses to survey questions about how they approach customers with medical and psychiatric comorbidities; state medicalization score (scale 0-100; higher score indicates more similarity to regulation of traditional pharmacies); legalized adult-use cannabis (yes/no). We conducted multiple mixed effects multivariable logistic regression analyses to understand relationships between state medicalization and dispensary employees' perspectives. RESULTS: Of 434 eligible respondents, most were budtenders (40%) or managers (32%), and a minority were clinicians (18%). State medicalization score was not associated with responses to most survey questions. It was associated with increased odds of encouraging customers with medical comorbidities to inform their traditional HCP of cannabis use (Odds ratio [OR]=1.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0-1.4, p=0.03) and reduced odds of recommending cannabis for individuals with cannabis use disorder (CUD) (OR=0.8, 95% CI 0.7-1.0, p=0.04). Working in a state with legalized adult-use cannabis was associated with recommending traditional health care instead of cannabis in those with serious mental illness (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.1-4.7, p=0.04). Less than half of respondents believed they had encountered CUD (49%), and over a quarter did not believe cannabis is addictive (26%). CONCLUSIONS: When managing cannabis dosing and safety in customers with medical and psychiatric comorbidity, dispensary staff preferred involving individuals' traditional HCPs. Dispensary staff were skeptical of cannabis being addictive. While state regulations of dispensaries may impact the products individuals have access to, they were not associated with recommendations that dispensary staff gave to customers. Alternative explanations for dispensary recommendations may include regional or store-level variation not captured in this analysis.