No abstract

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

Objectives: Opioid overdose deaths in Massachusetts linked to illicitly-manufactured fentanyl have increased dramatically. In response, an urban safety-net hospital added urine fentanyl testing with reflex confirmation testing to its standard urine toxicology panel. The goals of this study were to describe fentanyl toxicology test results, identify the positive predictive value of presumptive fentanyl immunoassay, and describe co-substance use among those with unexpected fentanyl positive results. Methods: We included urine toxicology tests from January through June 2016 analyzed at an urban safety-net hospital. We excluded tests from individuals prescribed or administered fentanyl within the preceding 72 hours. Positive fentanyl immunoassay tests underwent reflex chromatography confirmation testing. Samples that confirmed positive for acetyl fentanyl and/or fentanyl and/or norfentanyl were considered true positives. Results: Of 11,873 urine samples, 10.4% of samples screened fentanyl positive and 8.8% were confirmed fentanyl positive. The positive predictive value of a positive urine fentanyl screen was 85.7%. Of 4398 unique patients, 13.2% had at least 1 test confirmed positive for nonprescription fentanyl. Patients with a confirmed fentanyl positive drug test were more likely to have positive urine drug test for barbiturates, benzodiazepines, cocaine, methadone, and opiates, and less likely to have oxycodone or buprenorphine. Conclusions: At an urban safety-net hospital, nonprescription fentanyl use was common and was associated with greater use of other substances favoring routine fentanyl testing. Although the positive predictive value of the screening test was high, confirmation testing detected substantial numbers of false positives, especially in older patients. Therefore, fentanyl confirmation testing should be used when results will change treatment approach and patient education.

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.