Importance: Naloxone can be lifesaving in an opioid-related overdose (OD). However, the co-prescription of take-home naloxone (THN) is not widely adopted in routine clinical practice. We implemented a pilot program focused on increasing clinicians' awareness of THN and observed if this impacts THN prescriptions for our patients with cancer pain receiving opioids. Intervention: In January 2020, we initiated an educational program by twice-weekly video presentations and installed pamphlets in all clinic workstations highlighting the risk factors for ODs. We retrospectively reviewed electronic health records (EHR) of randomly selected patient visits, 200 each from eight weeks before intervention (BI) and eight weeks after the intervention (AI). Data on patient characteristics, risk factors for ODs, and THN prescriptions were collected. Results: In all, 380 unique patients were eligible for analysis. The median age was 60, 53% female, and 70% Caucasian. Eighty-two percent (152) BI and 73% (142) AI carried risk factors for ODs (p = 0.13). THN was prescribed to 21% (32/152) BI and 26% (37/142) AI (p = 0.53). Morphine-equivalent daily dose (MEDD) ≥100 mg (30%) and pulmonary disease (25%) were the most prevalent risk factors. The patient's likelihood of receiving a THN prescription increased by 0.9% for every 1-milligram increase in MEDD (p < 0.001, 95% confidence interval: 1.006–1.011). Conclusion: The educational intervention did not significantly increase the frequency of THN prescriptions. More direct interventions, including automatic EHR triggers, may need to be tested in future trials.

Naloxone nasal spray is recommended for patients with risk factors for opioid overdose. However, cancer patients' perceptions and beliefs regarding naloxone prescriptions and their self-perceived risks for overdose are understudied. To determine the proportion of cancer patients at risk for overdose who perceived naloxone as beneficial. Between July 2020 and April 2022, we surveyed 150 adult patients from the supportive care ambulatory clinic at a tertiary cancer center in the United States who received a co-prescription of naloxone nasal spray. We measured patients' knowledge of overdose risk-factors, attitudes, beliefs, and education received on naloxone. Risk-factors between beneficial vs. nonbeneficial groups were analyzed. The survey was administered on paper or via a telephone interview. Of the 150 patients, 55% were male, 70% were white, and 81% had advanced cancer. The majority of patients believed naloxone was beneficial (100/150, 67%). When compared to the nonbeneficial group, more patients from the beneficial group agreed that the concurrent use of alcohol (100% vs. 90%; P = 0.004) or sedating drugs (96% vs. 85%; P = 0.04) with opioids could result in overdoses and felt safe having naloxone at home (95% vs. 60%; P <0.0001). More patients from the nonbeneficial group associated naloxone prescription with being suspected of misusing opioids (12/50 vs. 8/100; P = 0.01), and fewer had confidence in their caregivers' ability to administer naloxone (69% vs. 95%; P < 0.0001). Most patients understood the benefits of naloxone and felt safe having one at home. More research is needed to identify knowledge gaps and develop educational strategies for those who find it nonbeneficial.

Background: Data on health care providers' (HCPs’) perceptions about patients with cancer pain and nonmedical opioid use (NMOU) are lacking. We examined the perceptions and attitudes of HCPs and assessed the usefulness of an interdisciplinary opioid stewardship program (OSP) while caring for these patients. Methods: An anonymous cross-sectional survey was conducted among the supportive care HCPs between September and November 2021. Results: Of 85 HCPs, 64 responded (75%) to the survey. Participants perceived that NMOU is underdiagnosed (42/64; 67%), and caring for such patients is difficult (58/64, 91%) and time consuming (54/64, 87%). A majority (50/51, 98%) were aware of the OSP, and (48/51; 94%) found it helpful. Conclusion: HCPs reported that NMOU is underdiagnosed and is challenging to manage. They endorsed the utility of an OSP in managing patients with concurrent cancer pain and NMOU. Future research should identify ways to standardize care and integrate OSP in routine supportive oncology practice.

Background: Urine drug testing (UDT) plays a significant role in monitoring patients on chronic opioid therapy (COT) for non-medical opioid use (NMOU). UDT, at times, can be inconsistent and misleading. We present a case where a patient on a buprenorphine patch had false negative results.Case description: A female in her 70s with metastatic breast cancer presented with uncontrolled pain from a T6 compression fracture. She had no relief with tramadol 50 mg every 6 hours as needed. Due to an allergic reaction to hydromorphone, our team prescribed a buprenorphine patch of 5 μg/h. Subsequently, she expressed excellent pain control, and the clinician confirmed the patch placement on examination. She underwent a UDT during the visit. The UDT was negative for both buprenorphine and its metabolites. The literature review showed that false negative UDT results are relatively common among patients with low-dose buprenorphine patches. The combination of a thorough physical examination, a review of the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program, and reassuring scores on screening tools placed her at low risk for NMOU.Discussion: Buprenorphine has a ceiling effect on respiratory depression and a lower risk for addiction. However, when used in low doses, the drug might not have enough metabolites in the urine, leading to a false negative UDT. Such results might affect patient–physician relationships.Conclusion: In addition to the UDT, a thorough history, screening for NMOU, physical exam, a review of PDMP, and a good understanding of opioid metabolism are necessary to help guide pain management.