This article describes the prevalence and correlates of pain interference categories (low, medium, and high) among patients with high pain intensity who are prescribed long-term opioid therapy. Findings reveal that 16.4% of participants with high pain intensity had low impairment. Multivariate analyses indicate that variables significantly associated with low pain interference were lower depression scores and greater pain self-efficacy.

Objective Depression and chronic pain are common in persons chronically infected with the hepatitis C virus (HCV), although little is known about the rate of co-occurrence or mechanisms by which they are associated. We evaluated whether pain-related anxiety mediates the relationship between depressive symptoms and pain-related physical functioning in patients with HCV. Methods Patients with HCV (n=175) completed self-report measures assessing demographic characteristics, pain-related function, and mental health. Path analyses examined direct effects of cognitive-affective and somatic symptoms of depression on pain interference and indirect effects of these relationships via four subscales of the Pain Anxiety Symptoms Scale-20. Results Cognitive-affective and somatic symptoms of depression were positively and significantly related to pain interference. Pain-related anxiety mediated the relationship between both cognitive-affective and somatic symptoms of depression, and this mediation was predominantly accounted for by the escape-avoidance component of pain-related anxiety. Conclusions Findings indicate a potential mediating role of pain-related anxiety, particularly escape-avoidance anxiety, on the relationship between depression and pain interference in patients with HCV. These findings suggest that escape-avoidance anxiety may be a particularly germane target for treatment in patients with HCV and chronic pain, particularly when depression, with characteristic features of withdrawal and inhibition, is a comorbid condition.

Objective: Urine drug testing (UDT) is recommended for patients who are prescribed opioid medications, but little is known about the various strategies clinicians use to respond to aberrant UDT results. We sought to examine changes in opioid prescribing and implementation of other risk reduction activities following an aberrant UDT. Methods: In a national cohort of VA patients with new initiations of opioid therapy through 2013, we identified a random sample of 100 patients who had aberrant positive UDTs (results positive for non-prescribed/illicit substance), 100 who had aberrant negative UDTs (results negative for prescribed opioid), and 100 who had expected UDT results. We examined medical record data for opioid prescribing changes and risk reduction strategies in the 12 months following UDT. Results: Following an aberrant UDT, 17.5% of clinicians documented planning to discontinue or change the opioid dose and 52.5% initiated another strategy to reduce opioid-related risk. In multivariate analyses, variables associated with a planned change in opioid prescription status were having an aberrant positive UDT (OR=30.77, 95% CI=5.92–160.10) and higher prescription opioid dose (OR=1.01, 95% CI=1.01–1.02). The only variable associated with implementation of other risk reduction activities was having an aberrant positive UDT (OR=0.29, 95% CI=0.16–0.55). Discussion: The majority of clinicians enacted some type of opioid prescribing or other change to reduce risk following an aberrant UDT, and the action depended on whether the result was an aberrant positive or aberrant negative UDT. Experimental studies are needed to develop and test strategies for managing aberrant UDT results.