Use of chronic opioid therapy for chronic noncancer pain has increased substantially. The American Pain Society and the American Academy of Pain Medicine commissioned a systematic review of the evidence on chronic opioid therapy for chronic noncancer pain and convened a multidisciplinary expert panel to review the evidence and formulate recommendations. Although evidence is limited, the expert panel concluded that chronic opioid therapy can be an effective therapy for carefully selected and monitored patients with chronic noncancer pain. However, opioids are also associated with potentially serious harms, including opioid-related adverse effects and outcomes related to the abuse potential of opioids. The recommendations presented in this document provide guidance on patient selection and risk stratification; informed consent and opioid management plans; initiation and titration of chronic opioid therapy; use of methadone; monitoring of patients on chronic opioid therapy; dose escalations, high-dose opioid therapy, opioid rotation, and indications for discontinuation of therapy; prevention and management of opioid-related adverse effects; driving and work safety; identifying a medical home and when to obtain consultation; management of breakthrough pain; chronic opioid therapy in pregnancy; and opioid-related polices. Perspective: Safe and effective chronic opioid therapy for chronic noncancer pain requires clinical skills and knowledge in both the principles of opioid prescribing and on the assessment and management of risks associated with opioid abuse, addiction, and diversion. Although evidence is limited in many areas related to use of opioids for chronic noncancer pain, this guideline provides recommendations developed by a multidisciplinary expert panel following a systematic review of the evidence.

We conducted two studies with medically hospitalized cancer and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) patients to assess the reliability and validity of a new measure of delirium severity, the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS). The first study used multiple raters who jointly administered the MDAS to 33 patients, 17 of whom met DSM III-R/DSM IV criteria for delirium, 8 met diagnostic criteria for another cognitive impairment disorder (for example, dementia), and 8 had non-cognitive psychiatric disorders (for example, adjustment disorder). Results indicate high levels of inter-rater reliability for the MDAS (0.92) and the individual MDAS items (ranging from 0.64 to 0.99), as well as high levels of internal consistency (coefficient alpha = 0.91). Mean MDAS ratings differed significantly between delirious patients and the comparison sample of patients with other cognitive impairment disorders or no cognitive impairment (P < 0.0002). The second study compared MDAS ratings of 51 medically hospitalized delirious patients with cancer and AIDS made by one clinician to ratings on several other measures of delirium (Delirium Rating Scale, clinician's ratings of delirium severely) and cognitive functioning (Mini-Mental State Examination) made by a second clinician. Results demonstrated a high correlation between MDAS scores and ratings on the Delirium Rating Scale (r = 0.88, p < 0.0001), the Mini-Mental State Examination (r = -0.91, P < 0.0001), and clinician's global ratings of delirium severity (r = 0.89, P < 0.0001). Thus, our findings indicate that the MDAS is a brief, reliable tool for assessing delirium severity among medically ill populations that can be reliably scored by multiple raters. The MDAS is highly correlated with existing measures of delirium and cognitive impairment, yet offers several advantages over these instruments for repeated assessments which are often necessary in clinical research.

Physicians' perceptions of depressive symptoms in their patients are correlated with patient's ratings, but there is a marked tendency to underestimate the level of depressive symptoms in patients who are more depressed. They are most influenced by symptoms such as crying and depressed mood, and medical factors that are useful, but not the most reliable, indicators of depression in this population. Physicians' ratings of their patients' distress symptoms seem to be global in nature--they are highly correlated with anxiety, pain, and global dysfunction. Physician assessment might be improved if they were instructed to assess and probe for the more reliable cognitive symptoms such as anhedonia, guilt, suicidal thinking, and hopelessness. Screening instruments and the use of brief follow-up interviews would help to identify patients who are depressed.

SummaryScreening for distress in cancer patients is recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and a Distress Thermometer has previously been developed and empirically-validated for this purpose. The present study sought to determine the rates and predictors of distress in a sample of patients being seen in a multidisciplinary lung cancer clinic. Consecutive patients (N = 333) were recruited from an outpatient multidisciplinary lung cancer clinic to complete the Distress Thermometer, an associated Problem Symptom List, and two questions about interest in receiving help for symptoms. Over half (61.6%) of patients reported distress at a clinically significant level, and 22.5% of patients indicated interest in receiving help with their distress and/or symptoms. Problems in the areas of family relationships, emotional functioning, lack of information about diagnosis/treatment, physical functioning, and cognitive functioning were associated with higher reports of distress. Specific symptoms of depression, anxiety, pain and fatigue were most predictive of distress. Younger age was also associated with higher levels of distress. Distress was not associated with other clinical variables, including stage of illness or medical treatment approach. Similar results were obtained when individuals who had not yet received a definitive diagnosis of lung cancer (n = 134) were excluded from analyses; however, family problems and anxiety were no longer predictive of distress. Screening for distress in a multidisciplinary lung cancer clinic is feasible and a significant number of patients can be expected to meet clinical criteria for distress. Results also highlight younger age and specific physical and psychosocial symptoms as predictive of clinically-significant distress. Identification of the presence and predictors of distress are the first steps toward appropriate referral and treatment of symptoms and problems that contribute to cancer patients' distress.

No abstract