D. Hasin, D. Shmulewitz, Malka Stohl, E. Greenstein, E. Aharonovich, K. Petronis, M. Von Korff, S. Datta, N. Sonty, Stephen Ross, C. Inturrisi, Michael L Weinberger, Jennifer Scodes, M. Wall
{"title":"Diagnosing Prescription Opioid Use Disorder in Patients Using Prescribed Opioids for Chronic Pain.","authors":"D. Hasin, D. Shmulewitz, Malka Stohl, E. Greenstein, E. Aharonovich, K. Petronis, M. Von Korff, S. Datta, N. Sonty, Stephen Ross, C. Inturrisi, Michael L Weinberger, Jennifer Scodes, M. Wall","doi":"10.1176/appi.ajp.21070721","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVE\nThe diagnostic criteria for opioid use disorder, originally developed for heroin, did not anticipate the surge in prescription opioid use and the resulting complexities in diagnosing prescription opioid use disorder (POUD), including differentiation of pain relief (therapeutic intent) from more common drug use motives, such as to get high or to cope with negative affect. The authors examined the validity of the Psychiatric Research Interview for Substance and Mental Disorders, DSM-5 opioid version, an instrument designed to make this differentiation.\n\n\nMETHODS\nPatients (N=606) from pain clinics and inpatient substance treatment who ever received a ≥30-day opioid prescription for chronic pain were evaluated for DSM-5 POUD (i.e., withdrawal and tolerance were not considered positive if patients used opioids only as prescribed, per DSM-5 guidelines) and pain-adjusted POUD (behavioral/subjective criteria were not considered positive if pain relief [therapeutic intent] was the sole motive). Bivariate correlated-outcome regression models indicated associations of 10 validators with DSM-5 and pain-adjusted POUD measures, using mean ratios for dimensional measures and odds ratios for binary measures.\n\n\nRESULTS\nThe prevalences of DSM-5 and pain-adjusted POUD, respectively, were 44.4% and 30.4% at the ≥2-criteria threshold and 29.5% and 25.3% at the ≥4-criteria threshold. Pain adjustment had little effect on prevalence among substance treatment patients but resulted in substantially lower prevalence among pain treatment patients. All validators had significantly stronger associations with pain-adjusted than with DSM-5 dimensional POUD measures (ratios of mean ratios, 1.22-2.31). For most validators, pain-adjusted binary POUD had larger odds ratios than DSM-5 measures.\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nAdapting POUD measures for pain relief (therapeutic intent) improved validity. Studies should investigate the clinical utility of differentiating between therapeutic and nontherapeutic intent in evaluating POUD diagnostic criteria.","PeriodicalId":74938,"journal":{"name":"The American journal of psychiatry residents' journal","volume":"43 1","pages":"appiajp21070721"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American journal of psychiatry residents' journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.21070721","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7
Abstract
OBJECTIVE
The diagnostic criteria for opioid use disorder, originally developed for heroin, did not anticipate the surge in prescription opioid use and the resulting complexities in diagnosing prescription opioid use disorder (POUD), including differentiation of pain relief (therapeutic intent) from more common drug use motives, such as to get high or to cope with negative affect. The authors examined the validity of the Psychiatric Research Interview for Substance and Mental Disorders, DSM-5 opioid version, an instrument designed to make this differentiation.
METHODS
Patients (N=606) from pain clinics and inpatient substance treatment who ever received a ≥30-day opioid prescription for chronic pain were evaluated for DSM-5 POUD (i.e., withdrawal and tolerance were not considered positive if patients used opioids only as prescribed, per DSM-5 guidelines) and pain-adjusted POUD (behavioral/subjective criteria were not considered positive if pain relief [therapeutic intent] was the sole motive). Bivariate correlated-outcome regression models indicated associations of 10 validators with DSM-5 and pain-adjusted POUD measures, using mean ratios for dimensional measures and odds ratios for binary measures.
RESULTS
The prevalences of DSM-5 and pain-adjusted POUD, respectively, were 44.4% and 30.4% at the ≥2-criteria threshold and 29.5% and 25.3% at the ≥4-criteria threshold. Pain adjustment had little effect on prevalence among substance treatment patients but resulted in substantially lower prevalence among pain treatment patients. All validators had significantly stronger associations with pain-adjusted than with DSM-5 dimensional POUD measures (ratios of mean ratios, 1.22-2.31). For most validators, pain-adjusted binary POUD had larger odds ratios than DSM-5 measures.
CONCLUSIONS
Adapting POUD measures for pain relief (therapeutic intent) improved validity. Studies should investigate the clinical utility of differentiating between therapeutic and nontherapeutic intent in evaluating POUD diagnostic criteria.