Changes in misuse and abuse of prescription opioids following implementation of Extended-Release and Long-Acting Opioid Analgesic Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy

Changes in Mortality Involving Extended-Release and Long-Acting Opioids After Implementation of a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy

Objective

To assess changes in mortality rates in extended-release and long-acting (ER/LA) opioid analgesics after the implementation of the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS).

Setting

All drug poisoning deaths in three states: Florida, Oregon, and Washington. Data were obtained through state vital records offices and the Researched Abuse, Diversion and Addiction-Related Surveillance System Medical Examiner Program.

Methods

Using cause-of-death literal text from death certificates, individual opioid active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) involved in each death were identified using rules-based natural language processing. Population-adjusted and prescriptions dispensed–adjusted mortality rates were calculated for all ER/LA opioid analgesic and individual opioid APIs. Rates before and after implementation of the REMS were compared. Rate changes were compared with rates from two APIs with little or no inclusion in the REMS: benzodiazepines and hydrocodone.

Results

The mean ER/LA opioid analgesic population-adjusted mortality rate significantly decreased in all three states (FL: P = 0.003; OR: P = 0.003; WA: P < 0.001). Mortality rates for benzodiazepines and hydrocodone also decreased and were not statistically different. Significant heterogeneity in mortality rates of individual opioids was observed between the three states. When adjusted for prescription volume, the ER/LA opioid analgesic mortality rate decreased in all three states, but was significant only for Washington (P < 0.001).

Conclusions

The population-adjusted mortality rate of ER/LA opioid analgesics has decreased in three states. Notably, the contributions to mortality rates by individual opioid analgesics were not uniform across the three states in this study. However, these changes were not generally distinct from changes in mortality rates where comparator substances were involved.

Benzodiazepines: Thinking outside the black box

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently issued a Drug Safety Communication requiring Boxed Warning updating and other changes in order to improve the safe use of the benzodiazepine drug class. These changes were prompted because 'The current prescribing information for benzodiazepines does not provide adequate warnings about [the] serious risks and harms associated with these medicines so they may be prescribed and used inappropriately'.

COMMENT

The FDA Communication points out that benzodiazepines can be an important option for treating disorders for which these drugs are indicated. However, the acknowledged problems of these drugs, which historically were considered an acceptable trade-off against their benefits, need to be reassessed in light of their widespread (over?) prescribing (for example, in 2019 an estimated 92 million benzodiazepine prescriptions were dispensed from US retail and mail-order pharmacies).

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

The FDA Communication can be viewed as an important step in reminding healthcare providers of the 'serious risks and harms associated with these medicines', and validation of such reports by patients. Importantly, the FDA Communication includes an often-neglected aspect of benzodiazepine prescribing, namely how to discontinue use, and the perplexing protracted withdrawal syndrome experienced by some patients. The Communication advises to providers: 'No standard benzodiazepine tapering schedule is suitable for all patients; therefore, create a patient-specific plan to gradually reduce the dosage, and ensure ongoing monitoring and support as needed to avoid serious withdrawal symptoms or worsening of the patient's medical condition'.

Evaluation of the Extended-Release/Long-Acting Opioid Prescribing Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy Program by the US Food and Drug Administration: A Review

IMPORTANCE

Extended-release/long-acting (ER/LA) opioids have caused substantial morbidity and mortality in the United States, yet little is known about the efforts of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and drug manufacturers to reduce adverse outcomes associated with inappropriate prescribing or use. This review of 9739 pages of FDA documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request aimed to investigate whether the FDA and ER/LA manufacturers were able to assess the effectiveness of the ER/LA Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) program by evaluating manufacturer REMS assessments and FDA oversight of these assessments.

OBSERVATIONS

The REMS program was implemented largely as planned. The FDA's goal was for 60% of ER/LA prescribers to take REMS-adherent continuing education (CE) between 2012 and 2016; 27.6% (88 316 of 320 000) of prescribers had done so by 2016. Audits of REMS programs indicated close adherence to FDA content guidelines except for financial disclosures. Nonrepresentative cross-sectional surveys of self-selected prescribers suggested modestly greater ER/LA knowledge among CE completers than noncompleters, and claims-based surveillance indicated slowly declining ER/LA prescribing, although the contribution of the REMS to these trends could not be assessed. The effectiveness of the REMS program for reducing adverse outcomes also could not be assessed because the analyses used nonrepresentative samples, lacked adequate controls for confounding, and did not link prescribing or clinical outcomes to prescribers' receipt of CE training. Although the FDA had requested studies tracking adverse outcomes as a function of CE training, the FDA concluded that these studies had not been performed as of the 60-month report in 2017.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Five years after initiation, the FDA and ER/LA manufacturers could not conclude whether the ER/LA REMS had reduced inappropriate prescribing or improved patient outcomes. Alternative observational study designs would have allowed for more rigorous estimates of the program's effectiveness.

Consistency Between Opioid-Related Mortality Trends Derived From Poison Center and National Vital Statistics System, United States, 2006-2016

OBJECTIVES

To determine the association between poison center opioid exposure calls and National Vital Statistics System (NVSS) deaths.

METHODS

We categorized Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NVSS mortality and the Researched Abuse, Diversion and Addiction-Related Surveillance System poison center program cases from 2006 to 2016 by International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, codes (heroin [T40.1]; natural or semisynthetic opioids [T40.2]; methadone [T40.3]; synthetic opioids, other than methadone [T40.4]). We scaled rates by 100 000 population and calculated Pearson correlation coefficients. Sensitivity analysis excluded polysubstance cases involving either heroin or synthetic opioids as well as natural and semisynthetic opioids.

RESULTS

The NVSS mortality and poison center program exposure rates showed similar trends from 2006 to 2012, and diverged after 2012 for all opioids combined, natural and semisynthetic opioids, and synthetic opioids (r = -0.37, -0.12, and 0.30, respectively). Sensitivity analysis with removal of heroin or synthetic opioid polysubstance deaths markedly improved correlations for all opioids combined and natural and semisynthetic opioids (r = 0.87 and 0.36, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The NVSS mortality and poison center exposure rates showed similar trends from 2006 to 2012 then diverged, with sensitivity analysis suggesting polysubstance cases also involving heroin or illicit fentanyl as the cause. Public Health Implications. The NVSS and poison center program may provide complementary data when trends diverge. Public health interventions must include both licit and illicit opioids for maximal impact.