Referral patterns and characteristics of uninsured versus insured patients referred to the outpatient supportive care center (SCC) at a comprehensive cancer center.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (26_suppl) ◽  
pp. 116-116
Author(s):  
Ahsan Azhar ◽  
Sriram Yennu ◽  
Aashraya Ramu ◽  
Haibo Zhang ◽  
Ali Haider ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Low Income ◽  
Care Center ◽  
Symptom Assessment ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Referral Patterns ◽  
Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale ◽  
Symptom Assessment Scale ◽  
Outpatient Supportive Care ◽  
Insured Patients

116 Background: Multiple barriers exist in providing quality palliative care to low-income patients with cancer. Such disparities may negatively influence effective management of symptoms including pain. Our objective was to compare referral patterns and characteristics (level of symptom distress) of uninsured vs insured patients. Methods: We reviewed randomly selected charts of 100 Indigent (IND) and 100 Medicaid (MC) patients and compared them with a random sample of 300 patients with insurance (INS) referred during the same time period (1/2010 to 12/2014) to our SCC. Data was collected for date of registration at the cancer center, diagnosis of Advanced Cancer (ACD), first visit to the SCC (PC1), symptom assessment (Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale-ESAS) at PC1. We excluded self-pay patients. Results: Results for IND, MC and INS (n = 481) respectively are as follows: Mean (SD) Age in yrs. was 50 (12), 48 (11) and 63 (13); p < 0.001. Percentage of non-white was 44%, 51% and 19.5%; p < 0.001. Percentage of unmarried patients was 64%, 68% and 33%; p < 0.001. Mean (SD) ESAS score at PC1 for pain was 5.6 (3.2), 6.7 (2.5), 4.9 (3.2); p < 0.001. Percentage of patients on opioids upon referral was 86%, 62%, and 54%; p < 0.001. Mean (SD) for referral time in months from ACD to PC1 was 8.7 (SD 10.4), 12.3 (SD 18.1) and 12 (SD 19.9) p = 0.31; for no. of encounters with SC per month were 0.46 (0.45), 0.41 (0.46) and 0.3 (0.55); p = 0.01; for survival in months (PC1 to last contact) was 6.4 (5.8), 5.6 (6.4) & 6 (7.22) p = 0.77. Conclusions: Uninsured patients had significantly higher levels of pain, were more frequently on opioids, younger, non-white and not married. They also required a larger number of SCC encounters. Insurance status did not impact timing of SCC referral or SCC follow ups at our cancer center.

Snapshot of an outpatient supportive care center at a comprehensive cancer center.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (26_suppl) ◽  
pp. 145-145
Author(s):  
Lindsey E Pimentel ◽  
Maxine Grace De la Cruz ◽  
Angelique Wong ◽  
Debra Castro ◽  
Eduardo Bruera
Keyword(s):  
End Of Life ◽  
Care Center ◽  
Case Manager ◽  
Symptom Assessment ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Early Integration ◽  
Team Members ◽  
Outpatient Supportive Care

145 Background: Integration of Palliative Care (PC) in oncology has been found to improve symptom distress, quality of life and survival in patients with advanced cancer. Early integration is most appropriate in the outpatient (OP) setting. However, most PC services in the U.S. do not have an OP component. Our study aims to provide a snapshot of the type of patients that are referred to this novel setting for the delivery of early PC. Methods: We reviewed a day in the SCC to illustrate the structure and process involved in the delivery of outpatient PC. We highlighted 9 patients seen that day to show the variety of patients, scope of services, and the unique roles that PC interdisciplinary team members perform. Results: 41 patients were seen that day in the SCC: 10 scheduled consults, 22 scheduled follow-ups, 9 (22%) same-day unscheduled patients: 4 follow-ups, 1 consult and 4 nurse triages. There were also 31 telephone encounters. Most patients seen were for routine follow-up and symptom assessment. However, 10 presented with worsening symptoms with one needing hospital admission. 21 patients required additional counseling: 2 for hospice transitioning, 12 for psychosocial distress, 7 for opioid education. PC was delivered predominantly by physicians and nurses with collaboration with our pharmacist, counselors, and case manager. Conclusions: Traditionally, PC has been delivered predominantly to patients with advanced disease and to aid in transition to end of life. In recent years, OP centers have dramatically changed the nature of PC work as in our snapshot. In addition to patients regarded as traditional PC patients, such as those transitioning to end of life, there are now patients who come in soon after arrival to a cancer center requiring specialized care to address a variety of symptom and educational needs, thus requiring adaptation of structure and processes to allow access for frequent follow ups and counseling and flexibility for walk-in visits. Our findings suggest that SCC needs to practice in a very different way which requires certain skills and assessment tools that are not conventionally present in traditional oncology clinic setting. More research is needed to identify the type of patients that would benefit most from a PC referral.

Patients’ characteristics and outcomes of palliative care inpatient consults at a comprehensive cancer center

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8524-8524 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. El Osta ◽  
F. S. Braiteh ◽  
S. Reddy ◽  
H. El Osta ◽  
E. Bruera
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Symptom Assessment ◽  
Disease Diagnosis ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Limited Information ◽  
Opioid Rotation ◽  
Cancer Data ◽  
Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale ◽  
Symptom Assessment Scale

8524 Background: There is limited information about the characteristics and outcomes of inpatient palliative care consults in cancer centers. Two mobile teams (MT) each with a physician, fellow, and a nurse, provide consultation to hospitalized patients (pts) with complex symptoms. Methods: We analyzed the pts characteristics and outcomes during a two-month period. The charts were reviewed for demographics, cancer data, reason for consultation, symptoms, interventions, and outcomes. Results: Sixty-one pts were analyzed. Pain was the main reason for a consult request in 46 pts (75%), delirium in 10 (16%), anxiety in 4 (7%) and constipation in 5 (8 %). Some pts had more than one reason. 56(92%) pts had metastatic disease, diagnosis for ≤1 year in 26 (42%) and ≤2 years in 44 (72%) (Median =17 months). The Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), 0–10, is summarized in the table. We uncovered new issues at consultation, such as 20 pts (38%) screened positive for alcoholism with CAGE questionnaire and the 34 pts (56%) had clinical delirium. Features of opioids toxicity such as constipation (N=43;70%), confusion (N=35;57%) (Mean MMSE = 23 ± 5), hallucinations (N=21;34%), myoclonus (N=16;26%) and miosis (N=18;29%) were frequently identified. The MT interventions included imaging studies (23%), enema (43%), laxatives (49%), neuroleptics (54%), metoclopramide (39%), corticosteroids (25%). Half (N=30;50%) of the pts had opioid rotation and/or had counseling (N=27;46%). One out of two pts (N=30;49%) required transfer to the palliative care unit. Conclusions: Most pts had previously undiagnosed opioid toxicity, delirium, and other symptoms. Opioid toxicity occurred secondary to rapid opioid escalation, possibly linked to chemical coping, and psychosocial distress. The outcome of these pts improved by opioid rotation, adding laxatives, metoclopramide, neuroleptics, and steroids. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.

The influence of a cachexia clinic on palliative care integration in oncology.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (31_suppl) ◽  
pp. 124-124
Author(s):  
Diane Portman ◽  
Sarah Thirlwell ◽  
Kristine A. Donovan
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Weight Loss ◽  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Symptom Burden ◽  
Symptom Assessment ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale ◽  
Symptom Assessment Scale ◽  
The Impact

124 Background: Appetite and weight loss are common in patients with advanced cancer and specialized cachexia clinics have been established to address these symptoms. Given the association between anorexia/cachexia and other adverse symptoms, these patients may also benefit from specialty level palliative care (PC). However, referral to outpatient specialty level PC is often delayed or does not occur. We sought to examine the prevalence of other factors associated with appetite and weight loss in patients with advanced cancer and the impact of a specialized cachexia clinic on identification and treatment of other PC needs. Methods: The records of patients referred by their Oncologist to the cachexia clinic of a cancer center from August 2016 to June 2017 were reviewed retrospectively. Subjects who had been referred to PC by their Oncologist were excluded. Patients had been assessed for symptom burden using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS-r). Patients identified with PC needs had been referred to the PC clinic for follow-up within 30 days after cachexia clinic consultation. Results: Thirty subjects were evaluated in the cachexia clinic (average age 68 years; 63% female). The predominant diagnosis was lung cancer (70%). An average of 6 symptoms per patient were in the moderate to severe range on ESAS, excluding appetite. Depression, fatigue and pain were most common. The average cachexia clinic total ESAS score was 51.61. Only 17% of patients had completed advance directives. Ninety-three % of patients were referred to PC and 68% were seen. The average number of PC visits was 2.79. Within the PC clinic, advance directive completion increased to 37%, goals of care discussion occurred with 50% and 17% received hospice referrals. At the most recent follow-up in the PC clinic, the average total ESAS score had decreased by 11.44 (22%) and all ESAS item scores were improved on average. Conclusions: The cachexia clinic proved a useful means to identify other PC needs and achieve effective PC referrals. We suggest this is proof of concept that specialty clinics can be a meaningful way to achieve an earlier entry point to comprehensive PC in patients who were not previously referred by their Oncologists.

Testing the feasibility of using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) to assess caregiver symptom burden

2017 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 14-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kimberson Tanco ◽  
Marieberta Vidal ◽  
Joseph Arthur ◽  
Marvin Delgado Guay ◽  
David Hui ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Financial Distress ◽  
Concurrent Validity ◽  
Care Center ◽  
Symptom Burden ◽  
Symptom Assessment ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Assessment System ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Edmonton Symptom Assessment System ◽  
Outpatient Supportive Care

ABSTRACTObjective:Caregiver symptom assessment is not part of regular clinical cancer care. The ESAS (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System) is a multidimensional tool regularly used to measure symptom burden in patients but not caregivers. The objectives of the present study were to determine the feasibility of the ESAS in caregiver completion (defined as ≥ 9 of 12 items) and determine its concurrent validity with the Zarit Burden Interview–12 (ZBI–12).Method:We conducted a prospective study on 90 patient–primary caregiver dyads seen in an outpatient supportive care center in a cancer center. The 12 item ESAS–FS (financial–spiritual) was completed by the dyads along with other clinical and psychosocial measures.Results:The caregiver ESAS was found to be feasible (90/90 caregivers, 100% completed ≥ 9/12 items) and useful (66/90 caregivers, 73%) by caregivers to report their symptom burden. Some 68 of 90 (76%) caregivers had symptom distress scores ≥ 4 on at least one symptom. A significant association was found between the ESAS scores of caregivers and patients for fatigue (0.03), depression (<0.01), anxiety (<0.01), sleep (0.05), well-being (<0.01), financial distress (<0.01), spiritual pain (<0.01), and total ESAS score (<0.01). Concurrent validity with the ZBI–12 was not achieved (r = 0.53, p = 0.74). A significant correlation was found between caregiver ESAS scores and time spent feeding, housekeeping, total combined caregiver activities, and total ZBI–12 scores.Significance of results:The caregiver ESAS is a feasible tool and was found useful by our caregivers. Further research is needed to modify the ESAS based on caregivers' recommendations, and further psychometric studies need to be conducted.

The conversion ratio for opioid rotation from hydrocodone to other strong opioids in cancer patients.

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (31_suppl) ◽  
pp. 164-164
Author(s):  
Akhila Sunkepally Reddy ◽  
Sriram Yennu ◽  
Jimin Wu ◽  
Diane Liu ◽  
Suresh K. Reddy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Care Center ◽  
Linear Regression Analysis ◽  
Symptom Assessment ◽  
Conversion Ratio ◽  
Opioid Rotation ◽  
Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale ◽  
Symptom Assessment Scale ◽  
Strong Opioids

164 Background: Cancer pain is initially treated with intermediate strength analgesics such as hydrocodone and subsequently escalated to stronger opioids. There are no studies on the process of opioid rotation (OR) from hydrocodone to strong opioids in cancer patients. Our aim was to determine the conversion ratio (CR) for OR from hydrocodone to morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD) in cancer outpatients. Methods: We reviewed records of 3,144 consecutive patient visits at our Supportive Care Center in 2011-12 for OR from hydrocodone to stronger opioids. Data regarding demographics, Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), and MEDD were collected in patients who returned for follow up within 6 weeks. Linear regression analysis was used to estimate the CR between hydrocodone and MEDD. Successful OR was defined as 2-point or 30% reduction in the pain score and continuation of the new opioid at follow up. Results: 170/3,144 patients underwent OR from hydrocodone to stronger opioid. 72% were white, 56% male, and 81% had advanced cancer. The median time between OR and follow up was 21 days. 53% had a successful OR with significant improvement in the ESAS pain and symptom distress scores. In 100 patients with complete OR and no worsening of pain at follow up, the median CR (Q1-Q3) from hydrocodone to MEDD was 1.5 (0.9-2) and hydrocodone dose to MEDD correlation was.52 (P<0.0001). The correlation of CR with hydrocodone dose was -0.52 (P<0.0001). The median CR of hydrocodone to MEDD was 2 in patients receiving < 40mg of hydrocodone/day and 1 in patients receiving ≥ 40mg of hydrocodone/day (P<0.0001). The median conversion ratio of hydrocodone to morphine was 1.5 (n=44) and hydrocodone to oxycodone was 0.9 (n=24). Conclusions: Hydrocodone is 1.5-fold stronger than Morphine. The median conversion ratio from hydrocodone to MEDD varied according to hydrocodone dose/day. [Table: see text]

The Opioid Rotation Ratio (ORR) from transdermal fentanyl (TDF) to strong opioids in cancer patients.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (29_suppl) ◽  
pp. 182-182
Author(s):  
Akhila Sunkepally Reddy ◽  
Sriram Yennu ◽  
Suresh K. Reddy ◽  
Jimin Wu ◽  
Diane D Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Care Center ◽  
Linear Regression Analysis ◽  
Symptom Assessment ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Transdermal Fentanyl ◽  
Opioid Rotation ◽  
Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale ◽  
Strong Opioids

182 Background: Despite being the most frequently prescribed strong opioid by oncologists, there is a lack of knowledge of the accurate the opioid rotation ratio (ORR) from transdermal fentanyl (TDF) to other strong opioids in cancer patients. Opioid rotation (OR) from TDF to other strong opioids is performed very frequently in cancer patients for uncontrolled pain or opioid induced neurotoxicity (OIN). The aim of our study was to determine the ORR of TDF to other strong opioids, as measured by morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD). Methods: In this ad hoc analysis, we reviewed 2471 consecutive patient visits to the supportive care center of a tertiary cancer center in 2008 for an OR from TDF to other strong opioids by a palliative medicine specialist. Information regarding demographics, Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), and MEDD were collected in patients who followed-up within 6 weeks. Linear regression analysis was used to estimate the ORR between TDF dose and net MEDD (MEDD after OR minus MEDD of breakthrough opioid used along with TDF before OR). Successful OR was defined as 2-point or 30% reduction in pain score and continuation of the new opioid at follow up. Results: 47/2471 patients underwent OR from TDF to other opioids and followed-up within 6 weeks. The median age was 54 years, 53% were male, and 77% had advanced cancer. The median time between OR and follow up was 14 days. Uncontrolled pain (83%) followed by OIN (15%) were the most frequent reasons for OR and 77% had a successful OR with significant improvement in ESAS pain and symptom distress scores. In patients with OR and no worsening of pain at follow-up (n = 41), the median ORR (range) from TDF mg/day to net MEDD was 100 (12.5-217), TDF mcg/hour to net MEDD was 2.4 (0.3-5.2), and correlation of TDF dose to net MEDD was .60 (P < 0.0001). Conclusions: The median ORR from TDF mg/day to MEDD is 100 and from TDF mcg/hour to MEDD is 2.4. Further validation studies are needed.

The Opioid Rotation Ratio (ORR) to transdermal fentanyl (TDF) in cancer patients.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (29_suppl) ◽  
pp. 181-181
Author(s):  
Akhila Sunkepally Reddy ◽  
Ali Haider ◽  
Supakarn Tayjasanant ◽  
Jimin Wu ◽  
Diane D Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Care Center ◽  
Linear Regression Analysis ◽  
Symptom Assessment ◽  
Transdermal Fentanyl ◽  
Opioid Rotation ◽  
Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale ◽  
Symptom Assessment Scale ◽  
Frequent Reason

181 Background: Cancer patients frequently undergo opioid rotation (OR) for uncontrolled pain or opioid induced neurotoxicity. TDF is one of the most common opioids prescribed to cancer patients. However, the accurate ORR from other opioids to TDF is unknown and various currently used methods result in a wide variation of ORRs. Our aim was to determine the ORR of morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD) to TDF when correcting for MEDD of breakthrough opioids (net MEDD) in cancer outpatients. Methods: We reviewed records of 22,532 consecutive patient visits at our Supportive Care Center in 2010-13 for OR from to TDF by a palliative medicine specialist. Data regarding Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) and MEDD were collected in patients who returned for follow up within 5 weeks. Linear regression analysis was used to estimate the ORR between TDF dose and net MEDD (MEDD prior to OR minus MEDD of breakthrough opioid used along with TDF after OR). Successful OR was defined as 2-point or 30% reduction in pain score and continuation of the new opioid at follow up. Results: 129 patients underwent OR to TDF from other opioids. The mean age was 56 years, 59% male, and 88% had advanced cancer. The median time between OR and follow up was 14 days. Uncontrolled pain (80%) was the most frequent reason for OR and 59% had a successful OR with significant improvement in ESAS pain, constipation, and symptom distress scores. In 101 patients with OR and no worsening of pain at follow up, the median ORR (range) from net MEDD to TDF mg/day was .01 (-0.02-0.04) and correlation of TDF dose to net MEDD was .77 (P < .0001). The ORR was not significantly impacted by variables such as mucositis, serum albumin, and body mass index (BMI). The ORR of .01 suggests that MEDD of 100mg is equivalent to 1mg TDF/day or 40mcg/hour TDF patch (1000mcg/24hours). Conclusions: The median ORR from MEDD to TDF mg/day is .01 and the ORR from MEDD to TDF mcg/hour patch is 0.4. Further validation studies are needed. [Table: see text]

Frequency and factors predictive of aberrant drug behavior in patients presenting to outpatient supportive care center at a comprehensive cancer center.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 10118-10118
Author(s):  
Sriram Yennu ◽  
Tonya Edwards ◽  
Joseph Anthony Arthur ◽  
Janet L. Williams ◽  
Zhanni Lu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Supportive Care ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Predictive Value ◽  
Financial Distress ◽  
Care Center ◽  
Male Gender ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale ◽  
Outpatient Supportive Care

10118 Background: Opioid misuse is a growing crisis in cancer patients. Cancer patients at risk of aberrant drug behaviors (ADB) are frequently underdiagnosed in routine cancer care. The aim of this study was to determine the frequency and factors associated with ADB using the “Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients tool” (SOAPP-14) in cancer patients seen at the outpatient supportive care center. We also examined the screening performance of Cut Down, Annoyed, Guilty, and Eye Opener (CAGE-AID) as compared to The SOAPP-14 as a gold standard. Methods: In this retrospective study, 1108 consecutive patients referred to supportive care clinic were reviewed. Patients were eligible if they were ≥18 yrs, have a diagnosis of cancer, and were on opioids for pain for atleast a week. Patients’ demographics, the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), SOAPP-14, and CAGE-AID scores were analyzed. ADB+ was defined as SOAPP-14 score ≥7. Descriptive statistics, spearman correlation coefficient, multivariate, and ROC analysis were performed. Results: 703/1108 consults were eligible. A total of 153/703 (22%) were ADB +ve. SOAPP-14 scores were positively correlated with CAGE-AID r = .38, p < 0.001; male gender r = 0.11, p = 0.003; ESAS pain r = 0.11, p = 0.005; ESAS depression r = 0.22, p < 0.001; ESAS anxiety r = 0.22, p < 0.001, and ESAS financial distress r = 0.23, p < 0.001. Multivariate analysis indicated that the odds ratio for ADB +ve was 6.18 in patients with CAGE-AID+ (p < 0.001), 1.8 for male gender (p = 0.007), 1.1/pt. for ESAS anxiety (p = 0.044), and 1.1/pt. for ESAS financial distress (p = 0.007). A CAGE-AID score of 1/4 has a sensitivity of 47%, specificity of 89% positive predictive value 63.6% and negative predictive value 69.2%. Conclusions: Our study suggests that 22% of cancer patients on opioids presenting to supportive care center are at risk of aberrant drug behavior (ADB). Male patients with anxiety, financial distress, and prior alcoholism/illicit drug use are significant predictors of ADB’s. A cut off score of ≥1 out 4 on CAGE-AID questionnaire allows better screening of ADB in outpatient advanced cancer patients. Further research to effectively manage these patients is needed.

Frequency of concomitant use of opioids and psychoactive medications among cancer patients referred to outpatient palliative care at a comprehensive cancer center.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (31_suppl) ◽  
pp. 240-240
Author(s):  
Ahsan Azhar ◽  
Ali Haider ◽  
Angelique Wong ◽  
Maria Agustina Cerana ◽  
Madhuri Adabala ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Care Center ◽  
Symptom Assessment ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Categorical Variables ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Continuous Variables ◽  
Exact Test ◽  
Psychoactive Medications

240 Background: There are potential severe effects when patients taking opioids receive other psychoactive medications. However, such combinations are sometimes necessary in palliative care. The purpose of this study was to determine the frequency of concomitant use of opioids + psychoactive medications in cancer patients referred to our outpatient palliative care center. Methods: Retrospective data obtained from consecutive consults was analyzed to determine the frequency of patients on opioids alone versus concomitant opioids + psychoactive medications at first presentation to our clinic. Association of type of medication with demographics and baseline characteristics was evaluated by Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous variables and Chi-square (Fisher's exact) test for categorical variables. Results: Among 541 consecutive consult visits, 365 (67%) patients were taking opioids at the time of referral to our clinic: 209 (57%) were on opioids alone while 156 (43%) were on concomitant opioids + psychoactive medications [69 (44%) were on Opioid + Benzodiazepine, 46 (30%) were Opioid + Antidepressants, 41(26%) were on both). Patients in the concomitant groups were on higher Morphine Equivalent Daily Dose (MEDD, p = 0.007), had higher Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scores (ESAS) for pain (p = 0.017), anxiety (p < 0.001), depression (p < 0.001) and spiritual pain (p = 0.03). Conclusions: A large proportion (156, 43%) of cancer patients referred to outpatient palliative care was on concomitant opioids + psychoactive medications. These patients were on higher doses of opioids with higher levels of pain and psycho-social distress at the time of first presentation. Further studies are required to better understand the clinical implications of concomitant use of opioids + psychoactive medications in such patients.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document