Diagnosing Prescription Opioid Use Disorder in Patients Using Prescribed Opioids for Chronic Pain.

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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
诊断处方阿片类药物使用障碍的患者使用处方阿片类药物治疗慢性疼痛。
目的阿片类药物使用障碍的诊断标准最初是针对海洛因制定的,但没有预料到处方阿片类药物使用的激增以及由此导致的处方阿片类药物使用障碍(POUD)诊断的复杂性,包括将疼痛缓解(治疗意图)与更常见的药物使用动机(如获得快感或应对负面影响)区分开来。作者检验了精神病学物质与精神障碍研究访谈(DSM-5阿片类药物版本)的有效性,该工具旨在进行这种区分。方法对来自疼痛诊所和住院患者(N=606)接受过≥30天阿片类药物治疗慢性疼痛的患者进行DSM-5 POUD评估(即,如果患者仅按照DSM-5指南的规定使用阿片类药物,戒断和耐受性不被认为是阳性的)和疼痛调节POUD(如果疼痛缓解[治疗意图]是唯一的动机,行为/主观标准不被认为是阳性的)。双变量相关结果回归模型显示10个验证者与DSM-5和疼痛调整POUD测量相关,使用维度测量的平均比率和二元测量的优势比。结果DSM-5和疼痛调节型POUD的患病率在≥2项标准时分别为44.4%和30.4%,在≥4项标准时分别为29.5%和25.3%。疼痛调节对药物治疗患者的患病率影响不大,但疼痛治疗患者的患病率明显降低。与DSM-5维度POUD测量值相比,所有验证者与疼痛调整值的相关性显著更强(平均比值,1.22-2.31)。对于大多数验证者,疼痛调整的二进制POUD比DSM-5测量值具有更大的比值比。结论采用POUD措施缓解疼痛(治疗意图)提高了效度。研究应探讨在评估POUD诊断标准时区分治疗性和非治疗性意图的临床应用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Trazodone-Induced Priapism and Increased Recurrence Risk With Antipsychotics Visual Media: An Aperture Into the Past and Future of Psychiatry The Unseen Stars: Girls With Autism Antipsychotic Use During Posttraumatic Amnesia in Traumatic Brain Injury Classic Psychedelics for the Treatment of Depressive Disorders: An Update for Psychiatrists in Training
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1