Abstract
Importance: Opioid use disorder (OUD) is an important comorbidity in individuals with advanced cancer, in whom pain is common. Full-agonist opioid medications are the cornerstone of cancer pain management, but the existing literature does not address how to manage cancer pain in patients with OUD. Objective: To conduct an expert panel to develop consensus on the appropriateness of management of cancer pain in individuals with co-occurring advanced cancer and OUD. Evidence Review: A 3-round modified Delphi process was completed from August to October 2020 with 2 cases: patient with advanced cancer, pain, and OUD treated with buprenorphine-naloxone or methadone. Participants rated management strategies in round 1, discussed results in round 2, and provided final responses in round 3. ExpertLens, an online approach to conducting modified Delphi panels, was used. Participants were experts in palliative care, addiction, or both, recruited by email from palliative care and addiction-focused professional groups, lists from prior studies, and snowball sampling. Data analysis was performed from November 2020 to July 2021. Findings: Of 120 experts (median age, 40-49 years), most were White (78 participants [94%]), female (74 participants [62%]), and held MD or DO degrees (115 participants [96%]); 84 (70%) participated in all rounds. For a patient with OUD taking buprenorphine-naloxone, it was deemed appropriate to continue buprenorphine-naloxone with thrice-daily dosing. Continuing buprenorphine-naloxone and adding a full-agonist opioid was deemed to be appropriate for patients with a prognosis of weeks to months and of uncertain appropriateness for patients with a prognosis of months to years. For a patient with OUD taking methadone dispensed at a methadone clinic, it was deemed appropriate to take over prescribing and dose twice or thrice daily. Continuing methadone daily while adding another full-agonist opioid was deemed appropriate for patients with a prognosis of weeks to months and of uncertain appropriateness for those with a prognosis of months to years. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this qualitative study provide urgently needed, consensus-based guidance for clinicians and highlight critical research and policy gaps needed to facilitate implementation..
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Article number | e2139968 |
| Journal | JAMA network open |
| Volume | 4 |
| Issue number | 12 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Dec 28 2021 |
Funding
Funding/Support: This study was supported by a grant from Cambia Health Foundation to Dr Merlin via subcontract from the University of Pittsburgh. Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Khodyakov reported being a creator of ExpertLens, which was used to collect data in this study. Dr Arnold reported receiving compensation from UptoDate for editorial work outside the submitted work. Dr Bulls reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health (grant KL2 TR001856; principal investigator, Doris Rubio) outside the submitted work. Dr Ritchie reported receiving grants from Humana, the National Institutes of Health, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, The John A. Hartford Foundation, California Healthcare Foundation, Centene Foundation, Boye Foundation, and West Health; and compensation from Aurora Health for a webinar outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- General Medicine
