Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2022 Nov 28;17(11):e0271379. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0271379

Association between recent overdose and chronic pain among individuals in treatment for opioid use disorder

Sarah M Hartz 1,*, Robert C Culverhouse 2, Carrie M Mintz 1, Matthew S Ellis 1, Zachary A Kasper 1, Patricia Cavazos-Rehg 1, Richard A Grucza 3, Laura J Bierut 1, Theodore J Cicero 1
Editor: Wen-Lung Ma4
PMCID: PMC9704550  PMID: 36441691

Abstract

Chronic pain increases risk for opioid overdose among individuals with opioid use disorder. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the relationship between recent overdose and whether or not chronic pain is active. 3,577 individuals in treatment for opioid use disorder in 2017 or 2018 were surveyed regarding recent overdoses and chronic pain. Demographics from the 2017 Treatment Episode Data Set, which includes all U.S. facilities licensed or certified to provide substance use care, were used to evaluate the generalizability of the sample. χ2 tests and logistic regression models were used to compare associations between recent overdoses and chronic pain. Specifically, active chronic pain was associated with opioid overdose among people in treatment for opioid use disorder. Individuals with active chronic pain were more likely to have had a past month opioid overdose than those with no history chronic pain (adjusted OR = 1.55, 95% CI 1.16–2.08, p = 0.0003). In contrast, individuals with prior chronic pain, but no symptoms in the past 30 days, had a risk of past month opioid overdose similar to those with no history of chronic pain (adjusted OR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.66–1.17, p = 0.38). This suggests that the incorporation of treatment for chronic pain into treatment for opioid use disorder may reduce opioid overdoses.

Introduction

The opioid overdose crisis continues to ravage the United States: deaths due to opioid overdose surpassed motor vehicle accidents as a leading cause of death in 2016 [1], and had a record high in the 12-month period ending in April 2021 [2]. The initial increase in opioid overdose was partially fueled by availability and misuse of opioids prescribed for pain [3, 4], progressed to an increase in heroin use [5] and most recently has transitioned to a surge in use of potent synthetic opioids, primarily illicitly manufactured fentanyl.

Chronic pain contributes to both non-fatal and fatal overdoses: chronic pain is associated with a lifetime history of non-fatal overdose [6, 7] and post-mortem interviews with friends and family members suggest that pain was a contributing factor for a large proportion of fatal opioid overdoses [8]. In addition, lack of treatment of chronic pain is the primary reason for relapse after seeking treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) [9], and higher pain levels in the year prior to treatment for substance use disorder are associated with 1.26 higher odds of overdose in the year following treatment [10]. Despite this, the current standard of care for treatment of OUD does not involve evaluation and treatment of chronic pain [11].

Epidemiological studies of chronic pain suggest it has a fluctuating course with acute exacerbations (or flare-ups) and periods of relatively few or no symptoms [1216]. There are multiple trajectories and patterns to chronic pain [17, 18]. Most commonly, individuals have multiple episodes of pain separated by asymptomatic periods or periods of lesser severity [19, 20]. Evidence suggests that active chronic pain in individuals with OUD is complicated by increased pain sensitivity that continues during opioid maintenance therapy [21]. Although the natural assumption would be that active chronic pain is directly associated with opioid overdose, to our knowledge, prior evaluation of this hypothesis does not exist. Specifically, no study has evaluated the relationship between overdose and active chronic pain among individuals in treatment for OUD. Determining that active chronic pain increases risk for opioid overdose more than prior history alone would provide a strong argument to include treatment for chronic pain in standard treatment for OUD.

Using a dataset of individuals in treatment for OUD, we divided the sample into three groups:”active chronic pain” defined as chronic pain within the past 30 days, “prior history of chronic pain” defined as past chronic pain without pain in the past 30 days, and those who never had chronic pain. To test the hypothesis that active chronic pain is a specific risk factor for overdose in OUD, we evaluated the association between opioid overdose in the month prior to treatment and chronic pain status in a large cross-sectional sample of individuals in treatment for OUD.

Materials and methods

Data

This study analyzed data from the Survey of Key Informants’ Patients (SKIP) Program. SKIP, an ongoing collection of over 24,000 individuals recruited from 154 treatment centers nationwide (including both residential and outpatient treatment), collects data on non-medical prescription opioid use and other illicit drug use [3, 2228]. SKIP was started in 2008 and is updated quarterly to enable rapid identification of changes in patterns of opioid use. Patients newly enrolled at participating treatment centers complete an anonymous questionnaire about their primary drug of abuse, sources of drug acquisition, drug use in the month prior to treatment, and routes of use as well as other assessments of mental health and psychiatric disorders. SKIP is a component of The Researched Abuse, Diversion and Addiction-Related Surveillance (RADARS ®) System (https://www.radars.org/), a mosaic of programs to monitor drug misuse and abuse and has been validated against other RADARS opioid surveillance programs [5, 29].

We analyzed SKIP questionnaires completed by adults aged 18 to 83 entering treatment for OUD in 2017 and 2018. Participants were from all regions of the continental US, Alaska and Washington DC. The overall response rate of the SKIP questionnaire was 87%, resulting in an analyzable sample of N = 3,577 individuals which we will refer to as the SKIP data.

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine. Risks of the study were explained on the first page of the SKIP questionnaire and return of the survey was considered informed written consent. No Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) identifiers were collected.

Variable definitions

Individuals were classified into three opioid overdose categories: past-month opioid overdose, earlier opioid overdose (i.e., individuals who have an opioid overdose, but not in the past month), and no past opioid overdose. History of opioid overdose was defined based on answers to the following question:

Have you sought medical treatment for:

  1. Heroin overdose [select one: never, past month, longer ago]

  2. Prescription opioid overdose [select one: never, past month, longer ago]

Individuals were defined as having an opioid overdose in the past month if they answered “past month” to either (a) or (b). Of those who did not report a past month overdose, individuals were defined as having a prior overdose if they answered “longer ago” to either (a) or (b). The remaining individuals who answered at least one of the two questions were defined as having no prior opioid overdose.

  • Chronic pain was queried using the following question:

  • For the following questions, chronic pain refers to pain that has lasted for at least 3 months. This pain can either occur constantly or flare up frequently. Have you suffered from chronic pain?

  • [No, Yes in the last 7 days, Yes in the last 30 days, Yes in the last 12 months, Yes in my lifetime]

Based on patterns of symptomatic and asymptomatic periods of chronic pain, active chronic pain was defined by answering “Yes, in the last 7 days” or “Yes, in the last 30 days”. Prior history of chronic pain was defined as answering “Yes in the last 12 months” or “Yes in my lifetime”, without meeting criteria for active chronic pain [20].

Race and ethnicity in SKIP were categorized as non-Hispanic Caucasian, non-Hispanic African American, Hispanic, American Indian or Alaskan native, or Other race based on answers to the question “What best describes your race/ethnicity?”. Gender was defined as “Female” or “Male” as responses to the question “What is your gender?”

Because one of the strongest risk factors for substance use disorder is early-onset substance use, we constructed an early-onset substance use variable defined as having used any of the following substances by age 16: prescription opioids, heroin, methamphetamines, crack/cocaine, ecstasy, or hallucinogens. Participants were asked to select formulations of substances that they had used in the past month to get high, and the methods with which they used them (swallowed whole, dissolved in mouth, chewed, smoked, snorted and/or intravenous). IV drug use in the past month was determined by selecting “intravenous” to any of the listed substances (buprenorphine, fentanyl, gabapentin, heroin, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, ketamine, loperamide, methadone, morphine, oxycodone, oxymorphone, pregabalin, sufentanil, tapentadol, tramadol, and THC/cannabanoid manufactured by pharmaceutical company). Current inpatient treatment was defined by selecting ‘Inpatient’ in response to “What kind(s) of treatment are you receiving”.

We used early-onset substance use, gender, age, race and ethnicity, employment status (employed versus unemployed), and educational attainment (up to and including high school degree versus beyond high school degree) as covariates in our analyses.

Comparison to representative sample

SKIP participants were recruited from treatment centers throughout the continental US, but the treatment centers were not randomly selected. As a consequence, it is not known how representative SKIP survey participants are of the OUD treatment population. To better understand this, we compared the available demographics from for individuals with a primary substance of heroin or other opioid use in the 2017 Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS), a comprehensive dataset of admissions to substance use disorder treatment facilities in the US, to the same demographics in SKIP. The demographic factors evaluated were gender, mean age, proportion of African American, proportion of European American, proportion of other ancestry, proportion with education beyond high school. Chi-square tests of independence [30] were used to determine whether the demographic factors differed between the two samples.

Statistical association analysis of the SKIP data

Our primary outcome was history of opioid overdose, as defined above, comparing individuals with an opioid overdose in the past month, individuals who had an opioid overdose >1 month ago, and individuals who never had an opioid overdose. First, we evaluated whether factors (gender, dichotomized age, education level, chronic pain status, etc.) were distributed non-uniformly across the three groups using χ2 tests. (i.e. whether any of these factors had a statistically significant association with opioid overdose). Next, logistic regression was used to calculate the association between past month overdose and chronic pain status. Analyses were run with chronic pain status alone, chronic pain status plus sociodemographic factors (gender, age, race and ethnicity, employment status, educational attainment, and use of illicit substances at or before age 16), and chronic pain status plus factors related to OUD severity (past month heroin or fentanyl use, past month intravenous (IV) drug use, and inpatient treatment). All statistical analyses were performed using SAS 9.4 [31].

Missing data

Of the over 24,000 individuals in the SKIP study, N = 3,738 completed the substance use survey. Of these 161 (4%) were missing information regarding either opioid overdose or chronic pain and were excluded from all analyses, for a primary sample size of 3,577. N = 32 (0.9%) did not include gender, N = 63 (2%) did not include employment status, and N = 303 (8%) did not include information regarding inpatient or outpatient treatment. Missing data were dropped when those variables were included in analyses.

Results

SKIP data were divided into three mutually exclusive groups of individuals: those who overdosed on opioids in the past month (N = 341, 10%), those who overdosed on opioids prior to the past month (N = 1,090, 30%), and those who had never overdosed on opioids (N = 2,146, 60%). We then evaluated whether any demographic factors were distributed differentially across the opioid overdose categories (Table 1). Gender was strongly associated with overdose (p<0.0001); men in treatment for OUD more likely to have either a past month overdose or a prior overdose (10% and 33%, respectively) compared to women in treatment for OUD (8% and 26%, respectively). Younger individuals in treatment for OUD (age 30 or less) were more likely to have had a recent overdose than older individuals (11% vs 8%, respectively, p = 0.02). Differences in patterns of overdose were also seen by self-defined race and ethnicity (Table 1, p<0.0001). Non-Hispanic African Americans in treatment for OUD had the highest past month overdose (13%) followed by non-Hispanic Caucasians (9%). Native Americans in treatment for OUD had the lowest rate of past month overdoses (5%). High school degree, health insurance status, and employment status did not have an association with overdose (p>0.05). Individuals who started using illicit substances by age 16 (excluding marijuana) had higher rates of both past month overdose (11% vs. 8%) and earlier overdose (38% vs. 25%, p<0.0001).

Table 1. Distributions and associations of past-month overdose with sociodemographic factors among N = 3,577 people in treatment for opioid use disorder.

  Past month OD N = 341 Earlier OD N = 1,090 Never OD N = 2,146 χ2 p-value
  10% 30% 60%
Gender + <0.0001
Female (N = 2,180) 8% 26% 66%  
Male (N = 1,365) 10% 33% 56%  
Age       0.02
<30 (N = 1,276) 11% 30% 59%  
> = 30 (N = 2,301) 8% 31% 61%  
Race & Ethnicity <0.0001
African American, non-Hispanic (N = 452) 13% 22% 65%  
Caucasian, non-Hispanic (N = 2,614) 9% 33% 57%  
Hispanic (N = 200) 8% 25% 67%  
Native American (N = 151) 5% 13% 82%  
Other race (N = 160) 8% 30% 61%  
Education       0.05
Up to and including High School degree (N = 2,084) 9% 32% 59%  
Beyond High School degree (N = 1,493) 10% 28% 62%  
Health Insurance 0.75
Uninsured (N = 1,162) 10% 30% 60%  
Insured (N = 2,415) 9% 31% 60%  
Employment +       0.15
Unemployed (N = 1,974) 10% 31% 59%  
Employed (N = 1,540) 9% 29% 62%  
Used illicit substances by age 16 (not including marijuana) <0.0001
No (N = 1,991) 8% 25% 67%  
Yes (N = 1,586) 11% 38% 52%  

OD = overdose

+Missing in some participants

To evaluate the representativeness of our sample, we examined the demographic alignment of the SKIP data, our sample of N = 3,577 individual survey respondents in treatment for OUD in 2017 and 2018, with the N = 645,285 treatment admissions in 2017 for OUD registered in the national database TEDS (Table 2). Overall, the two samples look similar demographically with respect to the categorizations as presented in the table. The dichotomous distributions of gender and age did not statistically differ between TEDS and SKIP. Because race and ethnicity were separated in TEDS and combined in SKIP, we were unable to statistically test the distributions between the two groups. It appears the proportions of African Americans (14% in TEDS vs 13% in SKIP) and Caucasians (73% in both data sets) are similar in the two samples, but that SKIP is oversampled for Native Americans & Pacific Islanders and undersampled for Hispanics. If the race and ethnicity groups in SKIP were collapsed to African Americans, Caucasians, and other/unknown (13% in TEDS vs 15% in SKIP), the Chi-Square p-value for the difference between SKIP and TEDS is 0.17. The demographic factor that differs significantly between the two samples is educational attainment: 31% of the TEDS sample had schooling beyond a high school degree relative to 36% of the SKIP sample (p<0.001). Of note, TEDS measured years of education, whereas SKIP measured terminal degree (with one option being “some college”).

Table 2. Demographic comparison of individuals in treatment for opioid use disorder from the Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS), a national database from treatment admissions and discharges at facilities that are licensed or certified by a state substance abuse agency, and the Survey of Key Informants’ Patients (SKIP), an in-depth survey of individuals from selected treatment centers nationwide.

The p-value is based on the chi-square test for homogeneity.

TEDS SKIP data p-value
N 645,285 3,577
Year(s) 2017 2017–2018
Gender 0.51
Male 61.2% 61.3%
Female 38.8% 38.7%
Age 0.56
≤ 30 years old 39.4% 39.5%
>30 years old 60.6% 60.5%
Race
African American or Black 13.7%
Caucasian 73.1%
Native American or Pacific Islander 1.9%
Other or unknown race 11.0%
Ethnicity
Hispanic or Latino 11.7%
Non-Hispanic or Latino 88.3%
Combined Race & Ethnicity
African American 12.6%
Caucasian 72.9%
Hispanic 5.6%
Native American or Pacific Islander 4.2%
Other or unknown race 4.7%
Education <0.001
High school degree or less 69.0% 64.3%
Beyond high school degree 31.0% 35.7%

We then looked at the association of the opioid overdose groups with chronic pain and with other factors related to severity of substance use disorder including past month use of heroin or fentanyl, past month use of IV drugs, and inpatient treatment (Table 3). Each of these factors was strongly associated with the overdose groups (p<0.0001).

Table 3. Distributions of past-month overdose with factors related to severity of opioid use disorder among N = 3,577 people in treatment for opioid use disorder.

  Past month OD N = 341 Earlier OD N = 1,090 Never OD N = 2,146 χ2 p-value
  10% 30% 60%
Chronic Pain <0.0001
Never (N = 1,586) 9% 27% 64%  
Prior history (N = 1,213) 8% 36% 57%  
Active (N = 778) 13% 30% 57%  
Past month use of heroin or fentanyl   <0.0001
No (N = 2,634) 8% 27% 65%  
Yes (N = 943) 13% 39% 48%  
IV drugs in past month <0.0001
No (N = 1,976) 5% 22% 73%  
Yes (N = 1,601) 14% 41% 44%  
Current inpatient treatment +     <0.0001
No (N = 1,563) 7% 29% 64%  
Yes (N = 1,711) 13% 33% 54%  

OD = overdose

+Missing in some participants

To gain a clearer understanding of the association between chronic pain status and past month opioid overdose, we adjusted for the potential confounding factors (Table 4). Individuals with active chronic pain were more likely to have had a past month opioid overdose relative to both those who have never had chronic pain (sociodemographic and severity adjusted OR = 1.55, 95% CI 1.16–2.08, p = 0.003) and those with prior chronic pain (sociodemographic and severity adjusted OR = 1.77, 95% CI 1.30–2.42, p = <0.001). In contrast, the rate of past month opioid overdose in individuals with prior chronic pain was similar to the rate in individuals with no history of chronic pain (sociodemographic and severity adjusted OR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.66–1.17, p = 0.38). These associations were substantively unchanged regardless of the covariates included in the regression model.

Table 4. Association between chronic pain status and past month overdose with different covariates in the model.

Individuals with past-month opioid overdose are compared to the remainder of the sample.

Association with past month opioid overdose
  No model covariates Model includes sociodemographicsa Model includes sociodemographicsa and SUD severityb
  OR (95% CI) p OR (95% CI) p OR (95% CI) p
Chronic Pain          
Never reference reference reference
Prior history 0.84 (0.64–1.10)  0.21 0.93 (0.71–1.24)  0.63 0.88 (0.66–1.17) 0.38 
Active 1.53 (1.17–2.00) 0.02 1.62 (1.23–2.14) 0.0007 1.55 (1.16–2.08) 0.003

agender, age, race, education, health insurance, employment, used illicit substances at or before age 16

bpast month use of heroin or fentanyl, IV drug use in past month, current inpatient treatment

OR = odds ratio

CI = confidence interval

SUD = substance use disorder

Discussion

In a large-scale, nationwide study of individuals in treatment for OUD, we examined the association between active chronic pain and recent opioid overdose. We found that among those in treatment for OUD, men, younger individuals, non-Hispanic African Americans, and individuals who started using illicit substances by age 16 were more likely to have past month overdose. Active chronic pain was associated with increased rate of recent opioid overdose, whereas a history of prior chronic pain or no history of any chronic pain had similar rates of recent opioid overdose. In the SKIP sample of individuals in treatment for OUD, over 20% had active chronic pain and could potentially benefit from treatment of the pain, which is not currently the standard of care for treatment of OUD. To our knowledge, this study represents the first analysis of the association between active chronic pain and recent opioid overdose.

The need to treat pain in individuals with OUD has been highlighted by many studies [3238]. There is some evidence that cognitive behavioral therapy is helpful for treatment of pain in OUD [39, 40]. Similarly, non-pharmacological treatment of active chronic pain has been associated with fewer opioid-related adverse outcomes in veterans [41]. There is also evidence showing that the combination of approaches including physical therapy, emotional and spiritual support, cognitive behavioral therapy, and non-opioid pharmacotherapies can reduce pain severity and improve functioning in those with chronic pain, preventing the onset of opioid misuse and OUD [42]. However, there remains a strong need for improved understanding of best practices for how to treat pain among individuals who have OUD [43, 44] and to ensure that quality pain management in OUD care is prioritized [9]. This is specifically relevant in light of the diversity of settings for treatment of OUD, where pain management experts are typically not integrated into the care team for treatment of substance use disorder.

Association between pain and overdose does not imply causality. Indeed, permanent neurophysiological changes in opioid receptor functionality may result from prolonged opioid use [21], which may make those with OUD more prone to chronic pain. Regardless of the etiology of the association between pain and overdose, a focus on non-pharmacologic management of chronic pain as a standard component in the treatment of OUD may be beneficial. The combination of the severity of the opioid overdose epidemic [45, 46] and the low risk of both non-opioid pharmacological therapy for chronic pain and non-pharmacological treatment of chronic pain suggests that the benefits of implementation of these therapies in the treatment of OUD would far outweigh the costs.

There are several limitations of this study. SKIP, although large, was recruited as a sample of convenience, potentially limiting the generalizability of the results. However these limitations are attenuated because the demographics of SKIP resemble the demographics of those with OUD in TEDS, the only national sample of individuals in treatment for substance use disorder. Unfortunately, TEDS does not track pain or other factors related to disease severity. To maximize generalizability, our findings are adjusted for demographic and illness-related factors. Another limitation is that the survey item used to determine opioid overdose asked about seeking medical treatment for overdose, rather than asking directly about recent overdose, and only includes non-fatal overdoses. Because of this, our sample is missing those who overdosed but did not seek medical treatment, and those who died from overdose. If people with prior chronic pain are more likely to have a fatal overdose, the interpretation of these results would change. Another limitation is that the SKIP data are cross sectional, and we are assuming that participants who reported both having chronic pain in the past month and an overdose in the past month overdosed while in chronic pain.

Further study is needed to clarify the observed association between active chronic pain and opioid overdose. Because only basic information regarding chronic pain was collected, an explicit evaluation of the history and treatment of chronic pain among individuals in treatment for OUD would help specify treatment recommendations. Similarly, more information about treatment for OUD which is not assessed in the SKIP survey such as history of treatment type and duration as well as method of administration would better inform the interpretation of the association between chronic pain and OUD.

Conclusions

Our findings have important ramifications for the treatment of OUD. The current standard of care for treatment of OUD neither includes an evaluation of pain, nor incorporates pain management [11]. Among people in treatment for OUD, we found that active chronic pain is highly prevalent, and rate of overdose among those with active chronic pain is much higher than the rate of overdose both in those with prior chronic pain and in those who have never had chronic pain. Therefore, evaluation and management of active chronic pain in this high-risk population may be a step towards reducing overdose deaths.

Acknowledgments

Disclosures: Dr. Bierut is listed as an inventor on Issued U.S. Patent 8,080,371, “Markers for Addiction” covering the use of certain SNPs in determining the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of addiction.

Data Availability

This work was supported by the Researched Abuse, Diversion and Addiction-Related Surveillance (RADARS®) System, an independent nonprofit post-marketing surveillance system that is supported by subscription fees from pharmaceutical manufacturers, who use these data for pharmacovigilance activities and to meet regulatory obligations. RADARS® System is the property of Denver Health and Hospital Authority, a political subdivision of the State of Colorado. Denver Health retains exclusive ownership of all data, databases and systems. Due to proprietary restrictions, data are not publicly available. Subscribers do not participate in data collection nor do they have access to the raw data. Data are held through Washington University in St. Louis, which can be contacted through Zachary Ortbal at ortbalz@wustl.edu, and also by Denver Health and Hospital Authority, which can be contacted through Stevan Geoff Severtson, PhD at geoff.severtson@rmpds.org.

Funding Statement

This research was supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants R21 AA024888-01 (SMH), R21 DA044744 (RAG & SMH), and UL1 TR002345 (LJB & SMH) url:https://www.nih.gov/ The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.National Safety Council. Odds of Dying–Data Details 2022. [Available from: https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/preventable-death-overview/odds-of-dying/data-details/. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.National Center for Health Statistics. Provisional Drug Overdose Death Counts 2021. [Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/drug-overdose-data.htm. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Cicero TJ, Ellis MS, Harney J. Shifting Patterns of Prescription Opioid and Heroin Abuse in the United States. The New England journal of medicine. 2015;373(18):1789–90. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc1505541 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Cicero TJ, Ellis MS, Surratt HL, Kurtz SP. The changing face of heroin use in the United States: a retrospective analysis of the past 50 years. JAMA psychiatry. 2014;71(7):821–6. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2014.366 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Dart RC, Surratt HL, Cicero TJ, Parrino MW, Severtson SG, Bucher-Bartelson B, et al. Trends in opioid analgesic abuse and mortality in the United States. The New England journal of medicine. 2015;372(3):241–8. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1406143 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Bonar EE, Ilgen MA, Walton M, Bohnert AS. Associations among pain, non-medical prescription opioid use, and drug overdose history. The American journal on addictions / American Academy of Psychiatrists in Alcoholism and Addictions. 2014;23(1):41–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Fernandez AC, Bush C, Bonar EE, Blow FC, Walton MA, Bohnert ASB. Alcohol and Drug Overdose and the Influence of Pain Conditions in an Addiction Treatment Sample. Journal of addiction medicine. 2019;13(1):61–8. doi: 10.1097/ADM.0000000000000451 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Yarborough BJ, Stumbo SP, Janoff SL, Yarborough MT, McCarty D, Chilcoat HD, et al. Understanding opioid overdose characteristics involving prescription and illicit opioids: A mixed methods analysis. Drug and alcohol dependence. 2016;167:49–56. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2016.07.024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Ellis MS, Kasper Z, Cicero T. Assessment of Chronic Pain Management in the Treatment of Opioid Use Disorder: Gaps in Care and Implications for Treatment Outcomes. The journal of pain: official journal of the American Pain Society. 2021;22(4):432–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2020.10.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Britton PC, Wines JD Jr., Conner KR. Non-fatal overdose in the 12 months following treatment for substance use disorders. Drug and alcohol dependence. 2010;107(1):51–5. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2009.09.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Kampman K, Jarvis M. American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) National Practice Guideline for the Use of Medications in the Treatment of Addiction Involving Opioid Use. Journal of addiction medicine. 2015;9(5):358–67. doi: 10.1097/ADM.0000000000000166 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Croft P, Blyth FM, Windt Dvd. Chronic Pain Epidemiology: From Aetiology to Public Health. New York: Oxford University Press; 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Von Korff M. Studying the natural history of back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1994;19(18 Suppl):2041s–6s. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199409151-00005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Von Korff M, DeBar LL, Krebs EE, Kerns RD, Deyo RA, Keefe FJ. Graded chronic pain scale revised: mild, bothersome, and high-impact chronic pain. Pain. 2020;161(3):651–61. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001758 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Carey TS, Garrett JM, Jackman A, Hadler N. Recurrence and care seeking after acute back pain: results of a long-term follow-up study. North Carolina Back Pain Project. Medical care. 1999;37(2):157–64. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199902000-00006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Hartvigsen J, Hancock MJ, Kongsted A, Louw Q, Ferreira ML, Genevay S, et al. What low back pain is and why we need to pay attention. The Lancet. 2018;391(10137):2356–67. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30480-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Downie AS, Hancock MJ, Rzewuska M, Williams CM, Lin CW, Maher CG. Trajectories of acute low back pain: a latent class growth analysis. Pain. 2016;157(1):225–34. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000351 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Croft PR, Dunn KM, Raspe H. Course and prognosis of back pain in primary care: the epidemiological perspective. Pain. 2006;122(1–2):1–3. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2006.01.023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Hoy D, March L, Brooks P, Woolf A, Blyth F, Vos T, et al. Measuring the global burden of low back pain. Best Practice & Research Clinical Rheumatology. 2010;24(2):155–65. doi: 10.1016/j.berh.2009.11.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Dionne CE, Dunn KM, Croft PR, Nachemson AL, Buchbinder R, Walker BF, et al. A consensus approach toward the standardization of back pain definitions for use in prevalence studies. Spine. 2008;33(1):95–103. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31815e7f94 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Wachholtz A, Gonzalez G. Co-morbid pain and opioid addiction: long term effect of opioid maintenance on acute pain. Drug and alcohol dependence. 2014;145:143–9. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.10.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Cicero TJ, Ellis MS, Kasper ZA. A tale of 2 ADFs: differences in the effectiveness of abuse-deterrent formulations of oxymorphone and oxycodone extended-release drugs. Pain. 2016;157(6):1232–8. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000511 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Cicero TJ, Ellis MS, Kasper ZA. Increases in self-reported fentanyl use among a population entering drug treatment: The need for systematic surveillance of illicitly manufactured opioids. Drug and alcohol dependence. 2017;177:101–3. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.04.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Cicero TJ, Ellis MS, Kasper ZA. Increased use of heroin as an initiating opioid of abuse. Addictive behaviors. 2017;74:63–6. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.05.030 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Cicero TJ, Ellis MS, Kasper ZA. Relative preferences in the abuse of immediate-release versus extended-release opioids in a sample of treatment-seeking opioid abusers. Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety. 2017;26(1):56–62. doi: 10.1002/pds.4078 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Cicero TJ, Ellis MS, Kasper ZA. Psychoactive substance use prior to the development of iatrogenic opioid abuse: A descriptive analysis of treatment-seeking opioid abusers. Addictive behaviors. 2017;65:242–4. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2016.08.024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Litman RS, Pagan OH, Cicero TJ. Abuse-deterrent Opioid Formulations. Anesthesiology. 2018;128(5):1015–26. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000002031 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Cicero TJ, Dart RC, Inciardi JA, Woody GE, Schnoll S, Muñoz A. The development of a comprehensive risk-management program for prescription opioid analgesics: Researched Abuse, Diversion and Addiction-Related Surveillance (RADARS®). Pain Medicine. 2007;8(2):157–70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.McDaniel H, Severtson S, BucherBartelson B, Green J, Dart R. Comparing prescription opioids, methadone, and heroin endorsement rates from the treatment episode data set to the RADARS system treatment center programs. RADARS® System Technical Report. 2016:Q3. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.We Kirch. Test of Homogeneity, Chi-Square. In: Kirch W, editor. Encyclopedia of Public Health. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2008. p. 1386–. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.SAS Institute Inc 2013. SAS 9.4. Cary, NC
  • 32.Dhingra L, Masson C, Perlman DC, Seewald RM, Katz J, McKnight C, et al. Epidemiology of pain among outpatients in methadone maintenance treatment programs. Drug and alcohol dependence. 2013;128(1–2):161–5. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2012.08.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Dunn KE, Finan PH, Tompkins DA, Fingerhood M, Strain EC. Characterizing pain and associated coping strategies in methadone and buprenorphine-maintained patients. Drug and alcohol dependence. 2015;157:143–9. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2015.10.018 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Rosenblum A, Joseph H, Fong C, Kipnis S, Cleland C, Portenoy RK. Prevalence and characteristics of chronic pain among chemically dependent patients in methadone maintenance and residential treatment facilities. Jama. 2003;289(18):2370–8. doi: 10.1001/jama.289.18.2370 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Stein MD, Herman DS, Bailey GL, Straus J, Anderson BJ, Uebelacker LA, et al. Chronic pain and depression among primary care patients treated with buprenorphine. J Gen Intern Med. 2015;30(7):935–41. doi: 10.1007/s11606-015-3212-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Voon P, Hayashi K, Milloy MJ, Nguyen P, Wood E, Montaner J, et al. Pain Among High-Risk Patients on Methadone Maintenance Treatment. The journal of pain: official journal of the American Pain Society. 2015;16(9):887–94. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2015.06.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Barry DT, Savant JD, Beitel M, Cutter CJ, Moore BA, Schottenfeld RS, et al. Pain and associated substance use among opioid dependent individuals seeking office-based treatment with buprenorphine-naloxone: a needs assessment study. The American journal on addictions / American Academy of Psychiatrists in Alcoholism and Addictions. 2013;22(3):212–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1521-0391.2012.00327.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Mark TL, Dilonardo J, Vandivort R, Miller K. Psychiatric and medical comorbidities, associated pain, and health care utilization of patients prescribed buprenorphine. Journal of substance abuse treatment. 2013;44(5):481–7. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2012.11.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Ilgen MA, Bohnert AS, Chermack S, Conran C, Jannausch M, Trafton J, et al. A randomized trial of a pain management intervention for adults receiving substance use disorder treatment. Addiction (Abingdon, England). 2016;111(8):1385–93. doi: 10.1111/add.13349 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Wachholtz A, Robinson D, Epstein E. Lessons Learned: Developing a Better Treatment for Patients With Chronic Pain and Opioid User Disorder. 2021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Meerwijk EL, Larson MJ, Schmidt EM, Adams RS, Bauer MR, Ritter GA, et al. Nonpharmacological Treatment of Army Service Members with Chronic Pain Is Associated with Fewer Adverse Outcomes After Transition to the Veterans Health Administration. J Gen Intern Med. 2019. doi: 10.1007/s11606-019-05450-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Hobelmann JG, Huhn AS. Comprehensive pain management as a frontline treatment to address the opioid crisis. Brain and Behavior. 2021:e2369. doi: 10.1002/brb3.2369 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.National Academies of Sciences E, Medicine. Pain Management and the Opioid Epidemic: Balancing Societal and Individual Benefits and Risks of Prescription Opioid Use. Bonnie RJ, Ford MA, Phillips JK, editors. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2017. 482 p. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Williamson C, Martin BJ, Argoff C, Gharibo C, McCarberg B, Atkinson T, et al. Pain Management and Opioid Therapy: Persistent Knowledge Gaps Among Primary Care Providers. Journal of Pain Research. 2021;14:3223. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S316637 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Blanco C, Volkow ND. Management of opioid use disorder in the USA: present status and future directions. Lancet. 2019;393(10182):1760–72. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)33078-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Scholl L, Seth P, Kariisa M, Wilson N, Baldwin G. Drug and Opioid-Involved Overdose Deaths—United States, 2013–2017. MMWR Morbidity and mortality weekly report. 2018;67(5152):1419–27. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm675152e1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Wen-Lung Ma

2 Feb 2022

PONE-D-22-00300Association between recent overdose and chronic pain among individuals in treatment for opioid use disorderPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hartz,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 19 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Wen-Lung Ma, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

"Funding: This research was supported by NIH grants R21 AA024888-01 (SMH), R21 DA044744 (RAG & SMH), and UL1 TR002345 (LJB & SMH)"

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

"This research was supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants R21 AA024888-01 (SMH), R21 DA044744 (RAG & SMH), and UL1 TR002345 (LJB & SMH) url:https://www.nih.gov/

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

Additional Editor Comments:

Please response to reviewers’ questions and revise accordingly. After prepared the revised manuscript, we are welcome authors to submitting to the journal.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This study addressed the relations between chronic pain and opioid overdose. The author used a survey database (Survey of Key Informants Patients; SKIP) of 3577 opioid use disorder individuals under treatment during 2017-2018. The database has 3738 complete the substance use survey, it excluded 161 who did not response to opioid overdose and chronic pain items. The author has also tested the representative of the SKIP database through comparison with another database of Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) at 2017. They used Chi-square tests for this comparison and showed consistency between these two data sets. Active chronic pain is defined as answer “yes” in the last 7 days or “yes” in the last 30 days from the “Have you suffered from chronic pain?” item. The author found that the active chronic pain of opioid use disorder (OUD) were more likely to have opioid overdose in the past month than no history chronic pain (OR=1.55). They suggest that chronic pain treatment may reduce opioid overdose.

This is an interesting study. It points out that the chronic pain in the last one month is a factor relating to opioid overdose in OUD patients. Chronic pain management should be considered in the reduction of opioid overdose. The writing has some minor revisions which need to be corrected for more clearance.

Minor comments:

1.In abstract, line 21-22, it said “Chronic pain increases risk for opioid overdose in the general population and among individuals with opioid use disorder”. This “general population” raised up the doubt if opioid could be assessible easily in drug store or over-the-counter.

2.In introduction, line 38-39, it said “…deaths due to opioid overdose surpassed motor vehicle accidents….”. The reference did not show this record. The current citation is pointing toward opioid-related mortality across the US by opioid type. This should be corrected.

3.In material and method, line 82, “The response rate in this group…”. This is not clear of which response rate. Following this correction, could the SKIP questionnaire add-up as a supplement so that the reader may understand the composition of the SKIP database. If the questionnaire has a web-page, it could be added also.

Reviewer #2: English language and style: English language and style are fine/minor spell check required

1.General comments: It is confused to identify the term “active chronic pain”, and the authors used chronic pain and active chronic pain in the manuscript, the definition of active chronic pain should be given in the introduction to help the reader understand the different forms of pain. Also, OUD (opioid use disorder) was select as the population, but it is vague why OUD patients were selected in this article since these patients need opioid treatment.

2.Title: The title reflects the content and problem studied.

3.Abstract: The background mention general population and OUD individuals, however, this study only recruited OUD individuals. The statistical analysis was not addressed clearly in method. The main results, conclusions, and implications of the investigation are addressed.

4.Key Words: The keywords are representative of the subject studied and exposed.

5.Introduction: The contexts of introduction section did not arranged logically. For example, Line 47-49 contained two contrast sentences; and no special point of view was proposed. Line 50-52 ”higher average pain levels in the year before treatment for substance use disorder are associated with increased risk of overdose in the year following treatment” could be re-write to make the meaning more clearly. The prevalence rate of opioid overdose from the reference should be presented. The objective of the study is mentioned, but the justification and the importance of this study should be reinforced.

6.Materials and Methods: In 2.1 Data section, authors collected the data from SKIP, in the abstract only mentioned 2017 Treatment Episode Data Set to evaluate the generalizability of the sample. SKIP seems to be more appropriate addressed in abstract. In the variable definition, it is suggested to address the rationale to allocate yes in the last 7 days and yes in the last 30 days with chronic pain into active chronic pain category from previous references. Section 2.5 (comparison to representative sample) is more suitable moved prior to section 2.3 (statistical association). There is a detailed description of the statistical tests used and how the authors addressed missing data.

7.Results: The 3.1 section could be moved to the beginning of the result. Although the representativeness of SKIP sample section was descripted in details, the importance of addressing this issue was not seen in the manuscript. In table 2, IV drug in past month and current inpatient treatment were not mentioned in method section as variables.

8.Discussion: Line 250-251 could be re-allocated in introduction section to explain the possible mechanism. The suggestion of applying other pain management strategies in OUD patients for further benefit in discussion is reasoned. However, the results were not compared with previous research findings and the key points from research results of table 1, 2 and 3 were not disclosure and emphasized.

9.Conclusion: The authors show in a very precise way of the main results of this study. The practical application of this research is explained.

10.References: The bibliography used is extensive. The writing of the bibliography is correct.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Nov 28;17(11):e0271379. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0271379.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


6 Jun 2022

Author's responses to Reviewer comments are italicized and in blue. We appreciate these constructive and supportive reviews and would like to thank the reviewers for their useful comments and their insightful assessment of our study.

Reviewer #1: This study addressed the relations between chronic pain and opioid overdose. The author used a survey database (Survey of Key Informants Patients; SKIP) of 3577 opioid use disorder individuals under treatment during 2017-2018. The database has 3738 complete the substance use survey, it excluded 161 who did not response to opioid overdose and chronic pain items. The author has also tested the representative of the SKIP database through comparison with another database of Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) at 2017. They used Chi-square tests for this comparison and showed consistency between these two data sets. Active chronic pain is defined as answer “yes” in the last 7 days or “yes” in the last 30 days from the “Have you suffered from chronic pain?” item. The author found that the active chronic pain of opioid use disorder (OUD) were more likely to have opioid overdose in the past month than no history chronic pain (OR=1.55). They suggest that chronic pain treatment may reduce opioid overdose.

This is an interesting study. It points out that the chronic pain in the last one month is a factor relating to opioid overdose in OUD patients. Chronic pain management should be considered in the reduction of opioid overdose. The writing has some minor revisions which need to be corrected for more clearance.

Minor comments:

1.In abstract, line 21-22, it said “Chronic pain increases risk for opioid overdose in the general population and among individuals with opioid use disorder”. This “general population” raised up the doubt if opioid could be assessable easily in drug store or over-the-counter.

Response: We agree and have removed the phrase ‘general population’ from the abstract. The sentence now reads: “Chronic pain increases risk for opioid overdose among individuals with opioid use disorder”. (Line 21)

2.In introduction, line 38-39, it said “…deaths due to opioid overdose surpassed motor vehicle accidents….”. The reference did not show this record. The current citation is pointing toward opioid-related mortality across the US by opioid type. This should be corrected.

Response: We replaced the citation to point to data from the National Safety Council in line 38 as follows:

“National Safety Council. Odds of Dying – Data Details 2022 [Available from: https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/preventable-death-overview/odds-of-dying/data-details/].”

3.In material and method, line 82, “The response rate in this group…”. This is not clear of which response rate.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s point. This sentence was replaced with “The overall response rate of the SKIP questionnaire was 87%..” (Line 85-86)

Following this correction, could the SKIP questionnaire add-up as a supplement so that the reader may understand the composition of the SKIP database. If the questionnaire has a web-page, it could be added also.

Since there are legal restrictions to sharing the SKIP survey publically, we are unable to add the SKIP questionnaire as a supplement. We have however referenced the following literature to expand on the study methodology in Line 82: “…and has been validated against other RADARS opioid surveillance programs (5, 29).”

Dart RC, Surratt HL, Cicero TJ, Parrino MW, Severtson SG, Bucher-Bartelson B, Green JL. Trends in opioid analgesic abuse and mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2015 Jan 15;372(3):241-8. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1406143. PMID: 25587948.

McDaniel, H.A., Severtson, S.G., Bartleson, B.B., Green, J.L., Dart, R.C. 2016. Comparing prescription opioids, methadone and heroin rates from the Treatment Episode Data Set to the RADARS® System Treatment Center Programs Combined. RADARS® System Technical Report, 2016-Q2. Denver, CO: Rocky Mountain Poison and Drug Center.

Reviewer #2: English language and style: English language and style are fine/minor spell check required

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s comment and have proofread the manuscript

1.General comments: It is confused to identify the term “active chronic pain”, and the authors used chronic pain and active chronic pain in the manuscript, the definition of active chronic pain should be given in the introduction to help the reader understand the different forms of pain. Also, OUD (opioid use disorder) was select as the population, but it is vague why OUD patients were selected in this article since these patients need opioid treatment.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s point. In the introduction, we have added a sentence in lines 63 - 66 identifying the “active chronic pain” group and clarified that our dataset was composed of only those with OUD some of whom had chronic pain and some who did not:

“Using a dataset of individuals in treatment for OUD, we divided the sample into three groups: ”active chronic pain” defined as chronic pain within the past 30 days, “prior history of chronic pain” defined as past chronic pain without pain in the past 30 days, and those who never had chronic pain.”

2.Title: The title reflects the content and problem studied.

3.Abstract: The background mention general population and OUD individuals, however, this study only recruited OUD individuals. The statistical analysis was not addressed clearly in method. The main results, conclusions, and implications of the investigation are addressed.

Response: We removed the phrase ‘general population’ from the abstract. The methods section was expanded to include a sentence addressing statistical analysis as follows (lines 26-28):

“χ2 tests and logistic regression models were used to compare associations between recent overdoses and chronic pain”

4.Key Words: The keywords are representative of the subject studied and exposed.

5.Introduction: The contexts of introduction section did not arranged logically. For example, Line 47-49 contained two contrast sentences; and no special point of view was proposed. Line 50-52 ”higher average pain levels in the year before treatment for substance use disorder are associated with increased risk of overdose in the year following treatment” could be re-write to make the meaning more clearly. The prevalence rate of opioid overdose from the reference should be presented. The objective of the study is mentioned, but the justification and the importance of this study should be reinforced.

Response: We appreciate the review’s comment. Both points were made in lines 43-46 to emphasize the role of chronic pain in non-fatal and fatal overdoses. A sentence was added to clarify that both points of view were being proposed:

“Chronic pain contributes to both non-fatal and fatal overdoses: chronic pain is associated with a lifetime history of non-fatal overdose (6, 7) and post-mortem interviews with friends and family members suggest that pain was a contributing factor for a large proportion of fatal opioid overdoses (8).”

Lines 47-49 were edited for clarity and the odds ratio from the cited reference was added as follows:

“..higher pain levels in the year prior to treatment for substance use disorder are associated with 1.26 higher odds of overdose in the year following treatment (10)”

The introduction has also been expanded and restructured to emphasize the importance of the study

6.Materials and Methods: In 2.1 Data section, authors collected the data from SKIP, in the abstract only mentioned 2017 Treatment Episode Data Set to evaluate the generalizability of the sample. SKIP seems to be more appropriate addressed in abstract. In the variable definition, it is suggested to address the rationale to allocate yes in the last 7 days and yes in the last 30 days with chronic pain into active chronic pain category from previous references. Section 2.5 (comparison to representative sample) is more suitable moved prior to section 2.3 (statistical association). There is a detailed description of the statistical tests used and how the authors addressed missing data.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s comments. The 2017 Treatment episode dataset (TEDS) addressed in the abstract was expanded on in lines 135-146, ‘Comparison to representative sample’. The data section has been rearranged so that the ‘Comparison to representative sample’ now appears before the statistical association (Lines 135 – 146) and has been edited for clarity.

To address the rationale of allocation ‘Yes in the last 7 days’ and ‘Yes in the last 30 days’ with chronic pain into active chronic pain category, we have cited the following reference in line 114:

Dionne CE, Dunn KM, Croft PR, Nachemson AL, Buchbinder R, Walker BF, et al. A consensus approach toward the standardization of back pain definitions for use in prevalence studies. Spine. 2008;33(1):95-103.

7.Results: The 3.1 section could be moved to the beginning of the result. Although the representativeness of SKIP sample section was descripted in details, the importance of addressing this issue was not seen in the manuscript. In table 2, IV drug in past month and current inpatient treatment were not mentioned in method section as variables.

Response: The results section was rearranged so that the representativeness of the sample appeared earlier in the results section (lines 193 – 217).

The importance of evaluating representativeness of the SKIP data was addressed in lines 136 – 138 as follows:

“SKIP participants were recruited from treatment centers throughout the continental US, but the treatment centers were not randomly selected. As a consequence, it is not known how representative SKIP survey participants are of the opioid use disorder treatment population.”

IV drug use and current inpatient treatment were mentioned and defined under variable definitions in the methods section (Lines 122 – 130) as follows:

“Participants were asked to select formulations of substances that they had used in the past month to get high, and the methods with which they used them (swallowed whole, dissolved in mouth, chewed, smoked, snorted and/or intravenous). IV drug use in the past month was determined by selecting “intravenous” to any of the listed substances (buprenorphine, fentanyl, gabapentin, heroin, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, ketamine, loperamide, methadone, morphine, oxycodone, oxymorphone, pregabalin, sufentanil, tapentadol, tramadol, and THC/cannabanoid manufactured by pharmaceutical company). . Current inpatient treatment was defined by selecting ‘Inpatient’ in response to “What kind(s) of treatment are you receiving”.”

8.Discussion: Line 250-251 could be re-allocated in introduction section to explain the possible mechanism. The suggestion of applying other pain management strategies in OUD patients for further benefit in discussion is reasoned. However, the results were not compared with previous research findings and the key points from research results of table 1, 2 and 3 were not disclosure and emphasized.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s point. The sentence “Evidence suggests that active chronic pain in individuals with opioid use disorder is complicated by increased pain sensitivity that continues during opioid maintenance therapy (21)” has been moved to the introduction (Lines 55 -56) to expand on the possible mechanism of chronic pain.

The results were not directly compared to previous research because no study to our knowledge has evaluated the relationship between overdose and active chronic pain.

We summarized key points from tables 1, 2, and 3 in the discussion as follows (Lines 251 – 254);

“We found that among those in treatment for OUD, men, younger individuals, non-Hispanic African Americans, and individuals who started using illicit substances by age 16 were more likely to have past month overdose.”

9.Conclusion: The authors show in a very precise way of the main results of this study. The practical application of this research is explained.

10.References: The bibliography used is extensive. The writing of the bibliography is correct.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Wen-Lung Ma

30 Jun 2022

Association between recent overdose and chronic pain among individuals in treatment for opioid use disorder

PONE-D-22-00300R1

Dear Dr. Hartz,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Wen-Lung Ma, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Wen-Lung Ma

16 Nov 2022

PONE-D-22-00300R1

Association between recent overdose and chronic pain among individuals in treatment for opioid use disorder

Dear Dr. Hartz:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Wen-Lung Ma

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    This work was supported by the Researched Abuse, Diversion and Addiction-Related Surveillance (RADARS®) System, an independent nonprofit post-marketing surveillance system that is supported by subscription fees from pharmaceutical manufacturers, who use these data for pharmacovigilance activities and to meet regulatory obligations. RADARS® System is the property of Denver Health and Hospital Authority, a political subdivision of the State of Colorado. Denver Health retains exclusive ownership of all data, databases and systems. Due to proprietary restrictions, data are not publicly available. Subscribers do not participate in data collection nor do they have access to the raw data. Data are held through Washington University in St. Louis, which can be contacted through Zachary Ortbal at ortbalz@wustl.edu, and also by Denver Health and Hospital Authority, which can be contacted through Stevan Geoff Severtson, PhD at geoff.severtson@rmpds.org.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES