Explore the vast range of titles available.

Opioid use among metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients has not been well-studied. This study examined the trends and patterns of opioid use among working-age, privately insured patients diagnosed with MBC. Using MarketScan data, we identified female patients diagnosed with MBC in 2006–2015. We determined the proportion of patients who filled a prescription for an opioid and calculated days’ supply and daily morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) from 1 year prior to diagnosis till 1 year after. We assessed the trend in opioid use over the 10-year study period and examined opioid usage patterns after the diagnosis of MBC. Among 24,752 patients included, 11,579 (46.8%) had an opioid prescription within 1 year before diagnosis of MBC, and 20,416 (81.4%) had an opioid prescription within 1 year after diagnosis. The proportion of patients with opioid prescriptions after diagnosis was relatively stable from 2006 to 2015. However, both the median daily MME and median days’ supply decreased over time with most of the decline from the subgroup of patients with prior prescription opioid use. Most patients received an opioid prescription in the first month after diagnosis (57.3%), dropping to approximately 20% from 3 to 12 months after diagnosis. Also, the median days’ supply increased substantially during the year after diagnosis for patients who received opioids (from 7 to 19). Most women with MBC require opioid analgesia within the first month after diagnosis. Judicious, long-term management of pain after diagnosis of MBC will continue to be necessary for many patients.

Background The utilization of modern-immunotherapies, notably immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), has increased markedly in patients with metastatic melanoma over the past decade and are recommended as standard treatment. Given their increasing adoption in routine care for melanoma, understanding patient access to immunotherapy and patterns of its use in Texas is crucial as it remains one of the few states without Medicaid expansion and with high rates of the uninsured population. The objectives of this study were to examine the trend in the utilization of immunotherapy and to determine factors associated with immunotherapy utilization among patients with metastatic melanoma in the era of ICIs in Texas. Methods A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the Texas Cancer Registry (TCR) database. The cohort comprised of adult (≥ 18 years) patients with metastatic melanoma diagnosed between June 2011 and December 2018. The trend in immunotherapy utilization was assessed by determining the proportion of patients receiving immunotherapy each year. The Average Annual Percent Change (AAPC) in immunotherapy utilization was assessed using joinpoint regression, while multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the association between patient characteristics and immunotherapy receipt. Results A total of 1,795 adult patients with metastatic melanoma were identified from the TCR. Immunotherapy utilization was higher among younger patients, those with no comorbidities, and patients with private insurance. Multivariable analysis showed that the likelihood of receipt of immunotherapy decreased with older age [(adjusted Odds Ratio (aOR), 0.92; 95% CI, 0.89– 0.93, p  = 0.001], living in high poverty neighborhood (aOR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.44 – 0.66, p  < 0.0001), having Medicaid (aOR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.44 – 0.73, p  = 0.02), being uninsured (aOR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.31 – 0.64, p  = 0.01), and having comorbidities (CCI score 1: aOR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.34 – 0.71, p  = 0.003; CCI score ≥ 2: aOR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.16 – 0.56, p  < 0.0001). Conclusions and relevance This cohort study identified sociodemographic and socioeconomic disparities in access to immunotherapy in Texas, highlighting the need for policies such as Medicaid expansion that would increase equitable access to this innovative therapy.

Objective To understand the physician perspective on the barriers and facilitators of implementing nine different opioid risk mitigation strategies (RMS) when prescribing opioid medications. Methods We created and dispersed a cross-sectional online survey through the Qualtrics© data collection platform among a nationwide sample of physicians licensed to practice medicine in the United States who have prescribed an opioid medication within the past year. The responses were analyzed using a deductive thematic analysis approach based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to ensure a holistic approach to identifying the barriers and facilitators for each RMS assessed. In concordance with this method, the themes and codes for the thematic analysis were defined prior to the analysis. The five domains within the CFIR were used as themes and the 39 nested constructs were treated as the codes. Two members of the research team independently coded the transcripts and discussed points of disagreement until consensus was reached. All analyses were conducted in ATLAS.ti© V7. Results The completion rate for this survey was 85.1% with 273 participant responses eligible for analysis. Intercoder reliability was calculated to be 82%. Deductive thematic analysis yielded 2,077 descriptions of factors affecting implementation of the nine RMS. The most salient code across all RMS was Knowledge and Beliefs about the Intervention, which refers to individuals’ attitudes towards and value placed on the intervention. Patient Needs and Resources, a code referring to the extent to which patient needs are known and prioritized by the organization, also emerged as a salient code. The physicians agreed that the patient perspective on the issue is vital to the uptake of each of the RMS. Conclusions This deductive thematic analysis identified key points for actionable intervention across the nine RMS assessed and established the importance of patient concordance with physicians when deciding on a course of treatment.

Introduction Despite the established effectiveness and relatively widespread availability of Medications for Opioid Use Disorder, individuals seeking treatment frequently encounter various structural and social barriers, including costs of treatment. This study aimed to understand the financial barriers that affect treatment continuation in individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD). Methods In this qualitative study, seven semi-structured in-depth focus group interviews were conducted among 28 participants in treatment for OUD. Basic demographic information were collected in a pre-focus group survey. Focus group interviews were conducted from December 2021 to February 2022. A moderator guide was used to facilitate the discussion. Transcripts were managed using ATLAS.ti© v7. Data collected from the focus groups underwent deductive thematic analysis. Results Data saturation was reached in 7 focus groups with a total of 28 participants (17 [60.7%] women; 27 [96.4%] white; 24 [85.7%] non-Hispanic). All three medications for OUD were represented (18 [64.3%] buprenorphine and naloxone, 5 [17.9%] methadone, 3 [10.7%] naltrexone, and 2 [7.1%] buprenorphine) and the time in treatment ranged from 1 month to over 36 months. Nearly all participants (27 [96.4%]) indicated a financial barrier that led to delayed treatment initiation and treatment retention. Two themes were identified from the focus group interviews: (1) OUD treatment-related financial burden- the direct and indirect cost associated with the treatment, and (2) psychosocial effects associated with the cost of OUD treatment -the mental, emotional, and social effects of the disease. Conclusions Most participants described the desire and need for resources to offset the unaffordable cost that inhibits treatment initiation and retention. Further work is required to help identify individuals susceptible to financial barriers that can lead to early discontinuation in treatment.

Background Prescription opioids have been increasingly prescribed for chronic pain while the opioid-related death rates grow. Naloxone, an opioid antagonist, is increasingly recommended in these patients, yet there is limited research that investigates the intention to get naloxone. This study aimed to investigate intention toward getting naloxone in patients prescribed opioids for chronic pain and to assess the predictive utility of the theory of reasoned action (TRA) constructs in explaining intention to get naloxone. Methods This was a cross-sectional study of a panel of U.S. adult patients prescribed opioids for chronic pain using a Qualtrics ® XM survey. These patients participated in the study during February to March 2020. The online internet survey assessed the main outcome of intention to get naloxone and constructs of TRA (attitudes and subjective norms); additional measures assessed the characteristics of patients’ opioid overdose risk factors, knowledge of naloxone, and their demographics. The relationship between TRA constructs, namely, attitudes and subjective norms, and the intention variable was examined using logistic regression analyses with the intention outcome contrasted as follows: high intention (scores ≥ 5) and non-high intention (scores < 5). Results A total of 549 participants completed the survey. Most of them were female (53.01%), White or Caucasian (83.61%), non-Hispanic (87.57%) and had a mean age of 44.16 years (SD = 13.37). Of these, 167 (30.42%) had high intention to get naloxone. The TRA construct of subjective norm was significantly associated with increased likelihood of higher intentions to get naloxone (OR 3.04, 95% CI 2.50–3.70, P  < 0.0001). Conclusions Our study provides empirical support of the TRA in predicting intention to get naloxone among chronic pain patients currently taking opioids. Subjective norms significantly predicted intention to get naloxone in these patients. The interventions targeting important reference groups of these patients would have greater impact on increasing intention to get naloxone in this population. Future studies should test whether theory-based interventions focusing on strengthening subjective norms increase intention to get naloxone in this population.

Background This study examined the trends and patterns of opioid and non-opioid pharmacotherapy use among a large national sample of privately insured pediatric patients with cancer in the United States. Materials and Methods We identified pediatric (aged < 21) patients diagnosed with central nervous system (CNS), lymphoma, gonadal, leukemia, or bone cancer from MarketScan data 2005-2019. We examined the proportion of patients who filled a prescription for the following 5 types of pharmacotherapy: opioid, anticonvulsant, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), antidepressant, and muscle relaxant during active cancer treatment. We assessed the trends and patterns in pharmacotherapy using multivariable logistic regressions. Results Among 4174 patients included, 2979 (71%) had an opioid prescription; 746 (18%), 384 (9%), 202 (5%), and 169 (4%) had anticonvulsant, NSAID, antidepressant and muscle relaxant prescriptions, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression showed a nonlinear trend in the use of opioids among pediatric patients with cancer over time such that use slightly increased until 2012 (OR of 1.40 [95% CI, 1.12-1.73] for 2012 vs. 2006) but then decreased thereafter (OR of 0.51 [0.37-0.68] for 2018 vs. 2012). The use of anticonvulsants, NSAIDs, and muscle relaxants increased significantly linearly over time (all P < .005). Conclusion There has been a downward trend in the use of opioids in recent years among pediatric patients with cancer and an upward trend in the use of non-opioid pharmacotherapy for pain management potentially as an alternative to opioids. This study examined the trends and patterns of opioid and non-opioid pharmacotherapy use among a large national sample of privately insured pediatric patients with cancer in the United States.

Purpose Over 25 million Americans reported having daily pain and between 5 and 8 million Americans used opioids to treat chronic pain in 2012. This is the first systematic review with meta-analysis to determine the effects of long-term opioid use on the Physical Component Summary (PCS) score and Mental Component Summary (MCS) scores of a Health-Related Quality of Life instrument in adults without opioid use disorder. Methods The a priori eligibility criteria for the PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus, and PsyINFO searches were (1) randomized controlled trial, (2) at least one opioid intervention group, (3) minimum of 4-week duration of opioid use, (4) comparative control group, and (5) adults ≥18 years that do not have dominant disease. The unit of analysis was the standardized mean difference effect size (Hedges's g). All results were pooled using random-effects models. Results Of the 340 non-duplicate citations screened, 19 articles comprising 26 treatment comparisons and 6168 individuals (treatment n=3160; comparators n=3008 with duplicates removed) met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review. Thirteen treatment comparisons were available for the meta-analysis. Across all PCS analyses, small, statistically significant improvements were observed (opioid versus opioid only: g=0.27, 95% CI 0.05-0.50, opioid versus placebo only: g=0.18, 95% CI 0.08-0.28, and all studies combined: g=0.22, 95% CI 0.11-0.32). There were small but not statistically significant changes on the MCS scores. Overall, high heterogeneity was present. Conclusions PCS scores improve with no change in MCS scores. However, long-term opioid trials are rare and only two trials included lasted longer than 1 year.

Opioids are frequently prescribed to patients with spine-related disorders (SRD), including those undergoing spinal surgery and those with various back or neck pain. Previous studies assessing the association between opioid use and the risk of emergency department (ED) visits among SRD patients have been limited to specific patient subgroups. Using nationally representative sample, we estimated the association between opioid use and the frequency of all-cause ED visits among SRD patients in the United States. This was a retrospective cross-sectional study design that utilized 2018-2022 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) data. Patients with SRD were identified using ICD-10-CM codes matching for spine-related diagnoses. The primary exposure variable was opioid use, defined by the MEPS prescription drug file. The outcome was all-cause ED visits, which were measured as the number of ED visits observed between 2018 and 2022 as reported in the MEPS emergency room visits files. Descriptive weighted analyses were used to examine the characteristics of patients with SRD. We selected the zero-inflated negative binomial model, which had the best model fit based on the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), to estimate the incident rate ratio of all-cause ED visits for opioid users compared to non-opioid users. The final sample consisted of 8078 adult patients (18632323 weighted sample) with SRD diagnoses, among whom approximately 21% received opioid prescriptions. The proportion of opioid users compared to non-opioid users varied by gender (opioid users: male 39.34%, female 60.66%; non-opioid users: male 42.45%, female 57.55%; P = 0.045) and insurance type (opioid users: private 61.51%, public 36.92%, uninsured 1.57%; non-opioid users: private 69.87%, public 26.49%, uninsured 3.64%; P < 0.001). Multivariable analysis revealed a significant association between opioid use and increased ED visits (IRR= 1.63, 95% CI: 1.39-1.90). We found that opioid use significantly increases the frequency of all-cause ED visits among SRD patients. These findings highlight the importance of cautious opioid prescribing among SRD patients.

Objective: Medications commonly used to treat heart disease, anxiety, and depression can interact resulting in an increased risk of bleeding, warranting a cautious approach in medical decision making. This retrospective, descriptive study examined the prevalence and the factors associated with the use of both selective-serotonin reuptake inhibitor and platelet aggregation inhibitor among individuals with co-occurring atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and anxiety or depression. Methods: Respondents aged 22 years and older, alive throughout the study period, and diagnosed with co-occurring atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and anxiety or depression (n = 1507) in years 2007 through 2013 of the Medical Expenditures Panel Survey were included. The use of treatment was grouped as follows: selective-serotonin reuptake inhibitor and platelet aggregation inhibitor, selective-serotonin reuptake inhibitor or platelet aggregation inhibitor, and neither selective-serotonin reuptake inhibitor nor platelet aggregation inhibitor. Results: Overall, 16.5% used both selective-serotonin reuptake inhibitor and platelet aggregation inhibitor, 61.2% used selective-serotonin reuptake inhibitor or platelet aggregation inhibitor, and 22.3% used neither selective-serotonin reuptake inhibitor nor platelet aggregation inhibitor. Respondents aged over 65 years (adjusted odds ratio = 1.93 (95% confidence interval = 1.08–3.45)) and having a diagnosis of diabetes (adjusted odds ratio = 1.63 (95% confidence interval = 1.15–2.31)) and hypertension (adjusted odds ratio = 1.84 (95% confidence interval = 1.04–3.27)) were more likely to be prescribed the combination. Conclusion: The drug interaction was prevalent in patients who are already at higher risk of health disparities and worse outcomes thus requiring vigilant evaluation.

Many variables influence a preceptor’s experiential evaluation of a pharmacy learner. However, the impact of social desirability bias, or the measure of an individual’s need for social approval, and its impact on the truthfulness of an evaluation is not well understood. Social desirability may present a barrier to students receiving accurate and truthful evaluations. Differences in the effect of social desirability may be seen between full-time faculty and non-faculty preceptors. Colleges of pharmacy should work to support preceptors by providing professional development, standardizing evaluation processes, and ensuring two-way communication. Additionally, a social desirability measure could be used for each preceptor and used by the experiential team to identify preceptors potentially in need of additional development. Future studies should evaluate the effect of social desirability on how preceptors complete evaluations, and propose methods to mitigate this form of bias in the evaluation process.