Annals of palliative medicine · 2023
Deficiencies with CAGE-AID questionnaire in identifying nonmedical opioid use-a report of two cases.
Клинический случайСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Amaram-Davila Jaya, Bramati Patricia, Gammon Laura, Mallipeddi Tarun, Jastrzemski Olivia, Clark Matthew D, Arthur Joseph, Reddy Akhila, Bruera Eduardo
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The CAGE-AID questionnaire (Cut-down, Annoyed, Guilty, Eye-opener scale Adapted to Include Drugs) is used to screen patients for substance use disorder and nonmedical opioid use (NMOU). Major pain guidelines encourage using such screening tools for all patients including cancer patients before initiating opioids. We present two cases where the CAGE-AID results did not accurately identify the risk for NMOU.
CASE DESCRIPTION: Patient 1 is a male in his 60s with metastatic prostate cancer was admitted for uncontrolled pain. Imaging revealed extensive spinal metastasis, needing initiation of methadone and hydromorphone. The CAGE-AID score was positive, placing him at risk for NMOU. This likely biased the providers, delaying opioid titration. Subsequently, doses were adjusted, and he was discharged with adequate pain control and no evidence of NMOU. Patient 2 is a male in his 40s with metastatic cholangiocarcinoma admitted for uncontrolled abdominal pain. The patient had multiple hospitalizations at different facilities with similar symptoms. The CAGE-AID score was negative. Despite this, the patient demonstrated behaviors such as demanding intravenous opioids, dose escalation, or interventions such as nerve blocks. The workup did not identify any etiology for the increased pain. The patient left the hospital against medical advice when his demands for intravenous opioids were not met.
CONCLUSIONS: The CAGE-AID questionnaire alone does not accurately identify risks for NMOU. Screening tools must always be accompanied by a thorough clinical assessment of behaviors and pain mechanism. More research is needed to better characterize CAGE-AID false positives and negatives among patients with cancer pain.
CASE DESCRIPTION: Patient 1 is a male in his 60s with metastatic prostate cancer was admitted for uncontrolled pain. Imaging revealed extensive spinal metastasis, needing initiation of methadone and hydromorphone. The CAGE-AID score was positive, placing him at risk for NMOU. This likely biased the providers, delaying opioid titration. Subsequently, doses were adjusted, and he was discharged with adequate pain control and no evidence of NMOU. Patient 2 is a male in his 40s with metastatic cholangiocarcinoma admitted for uncontrolled abdominal pain. The patient had multiple hospitalizations at different facilities with similar symptoms. The CAGE-AID score was negative. Despite this, the patient demonstrated behaviors such as demanding intravenous opioids, dose escalation, or interventions such as nerve blocks. The workup did not identify any etiology for the increased pain. The patient left the hospital against medical advice when his demands for intravenous opioids were not met.
CONCLUSIONS: The CAGE-AID questionnaire alone does not accurately identify risks for NMOU. Screening tools must always be accompanied by a thorough clinical assessment of behaviors and pain mechanism. More research is needed to better characterize CAGE-AID false positives and negatives among patients with cancer pain.