Rapid Discontinuation of Chronic, High-Dose Opioid Treatment for Pain: Prevalence and Associated Factors

Patient Perspectives on Mental Health and Pain Management Support Needed Versus Received During Opioid Deprescribing

Prescription opioid tapering has increased significantly over the last decade. Evidence suggests that tapering too quickly or without appropriate support may unintentionally harm patients. The aim of this analysis was to understand patients' experiences with opioid tapering, including support received or not received for pain control or mental health. Patients with evidence of opioid tapering from 6 health care systems participated in semi-structured, in-depth interviews; family members of suicide decedents with evidence of opioid tapering were also interviewed. Interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. Participants included 176 patients and 16 family members. Results showed that 24% of the participants felt their clinicians checked in with them about their taper experiences while 41% reported their clinicians did not. A majority (68%) of individuals who experienced suicide behavior during tapering reported that clinicians did check in about mood and mental health changes specifically; however, 27% of that group reported no such check-in. More individuals reported negative experiences (than positive) with pain management clinics-where patients are often referred for tapering and pain management support. Patients reporting successful tapering experiences named shared decision-making and ability to adjust taper speed or pause tapering as helpful components of care. Fifty-six percent of patients reported needing more support during tapering, including more empathy and compassion (48%) and an individualized approach to tapering (41%). Patient-centered approaches to tapering include reaching out to monitor how patients are doing, involving patients in decision-making, supporting mental health changes, and allowing for flexibility in the tapering pace. PERSPECTIVE: Patients tapering prescription opioids desire more provider-initiated communication including checking in about pain, setting expectations for withdrawal and mental health-related changes, and providing support for mental health. Patients preferred opportunities to share decisions about taper speed and to have flexibility with pausing the taper as needed.

Longitudinal dose patterns among patients newly initiated on long-term opioid therapy in the United States, 2018 to 2019: an observational cohort study and time-series cluster analysis

ABSTRACT

Opioid prescribing varies widely, and prescribed opioid dosages for an individual can fluctuate over time. Patterns in daily opioid dosage among patients prescribed long-term opioid therapy have not been previously examined. This study uses a novel application of time-series cluster analysis to characterize and visualize daily opioid dosage trajectories and associated demographic characteristics of patients newly initiated on long-term opioid therapy. We used 2018 to 2019 data from the IQVIA Longitudinal Prescription (LRx) all-payer pharmacy database, which covers 92% of retail pharmacy prescriptions dispensed in the United States. We identified a cohort of 277,967 patients newly initiated on long-term opioid therapy during 2018. Patients were stratified into 4 categories based on their mean daily dosage during a 90-day baseline period (<50, 50-89, 90-149, and ≥150 morphine milligram equivalent [MME]) and followed for a 270-day follow-up period. Time-series cluster analysis identified 2 clusters for each of the 3 baseline dosage categories <150 MME and 3 clusters for the baseline dosage category ≥150 MME. One cluster in each baseline dosage category comprised opioid dosage trajectories with decreases in dosage at the end of the follow-up period (80.7%, 98.7%, 98.7%, and 99.0%, respectively), discontinuation (58.5%, 80.0%, 79.3%, and 81.7%, respectively), and rapid tapering (50.8%, 85.8%, 87.5%, and 92.9%, respectively). These findings indicate multiple clusters of patients newly initiated on long-term opioid therapy who experience discontinuation and rapid tapering and highlight potential areas for clinician training to advance evidence-based guideline-concordant opioid prescribing, including strategies to minimize sudden dosage changes, discontinuation, or rapid tapering, and the importance of shared decision-making.

Factors Associated With Abrupt Discontinuation of Long-Term High-Dose Opioid Treatment

This cohort study investigates factors associated with abrupt discontinuation of long-term high-dose opioid treatment at the national level and across US states.

Impact of Mandated Case Review Policy on Opioid Discontinuation and Mortality Among High-Risk Long-Term Opioid Therapy Patients: The STORM Stepped-Wedge Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Although long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) has its own risks, opioid discontinuation could pose harm for high-risk Veterans Health Administration (VHA) patients receiving LTOT. There is limited information on the impact of a mandate requiring providers to perform case reviews on high-risk patients with an active opioid prescription (ie, mandated case review policy) on opioid discontinuation and mortality.

METHODS

Our study is a secondary data analysis of a 23-month stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial between April 2018 and March 2020. The study included 10 685 LTOT patients with a predicted risk of a serious adverse event between the top 1% to 5% nationally who entered the risk range between 4/18/2018 and 11/9/2019. We examined whether the mandated case review policy had an impact on opioid discontinuation and mortality for the patients.

RESULTS

Among 10 685 LTOT patients (88.2% male; mean [SD] age, 61.1 [11.7] years), 29.1% experienced discontinuation and the mortality rate was 9.5%. Patients under mandated case review had a decreased risk of opioid discontinuation (average marginal effect [AME], -11.16 [95% CI, -15.30 to -7.01] percentage points) and all-cause mortality (AME, -3.31 [95% CI, -5.63 to -1.00] percentage points), relative to patients who were not under the mandate.

CONCLUSIONS

The VHA mandated case review policy was associated with lower probability of discontinuation and all-cause mortality for high-risk patients receiving LTOT. Interventions that maintain care engagement while optimizing pain management for high-risk patients may be beneficial for minimizing mortality and other risks associated with discontinuation.

An Exploratory Analysis of Differential Prescribing of High-Risk Opioids by Insurance Type Among Patients Seen by the Same Clinician

BACKGROUND

Insurance status may influence quality of opioid analgesic (OA) prescribing among patients seen by the same clinician.

OBJECTIVE

To explore how high-risk OA prescribing varies by payer type among patients seeing the same prescriber and identify clinician characteristics associated with variable prescribing DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using the 2016-2018 IQVIA Real World Data - Longitudinal Prescription PARTICIPANTS: New OA treatment episodes for individuals ≥ 12 years, categorized by payer and prescriber. We created three dyads: prescribers with ≥ 10 commercial insurance episodes and ≥ 10 Medicaid episodes; ≥ 10 commercial insurance episodes and ≥ 10 self-pay episodes; and ≥ 10 Medicaid episodes and ≥ 10 self-pay episodes.

MAIN OUTCOME(S) AND MEASURE(S)

Rates of high-risk episodes (initial opioid episodes with > 7-days' supply or prescriptions with a morphine milliequivalent daily dose >90) and odds of being an unbalanced prescriber (prescribers with significantly higher percentage of high-risk episodes paid by one payer vs. the other payer) KEY RESULTS: There were 88,352 prescribers in the Medicaid/self-pay dyad, 172,392 in the Medicaid/commercial dyad, and 122,748 in the self-pay/commercial dyad. In the Medicaid/self-pay and the commercial-self-pay dyads, self-pay episodes had higher high-risk episode rates than Medicaid (16.1% and 18.4%) or commercial (22.7% vs. 22.4%). In the Medicaid/commercial dyad, Medicaid had higher high-risk episode rates (21.1% vs. 20.4%). The proportion of unbalanced prescribers was 11-12% across dyads. In adjusted analyses, surgeons and pain specialists were more likely to be unbalanced prescribers than adult primary care physicians (PCPs) in the Medicaid/self-paydyad (aOR 1.2, 95% CI 1.16-1.34 and aOR 1.2, 95% CI 1.03-1.34). For Medicaid/commercial and self-pay/commercial dyads, surgeons had lower odds of being unbalanced compared to PCPs (aOR 0.6, 95% CI 0.57-0.66 and aOR 0.6, 95% CI 0.61-0.68).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians prescribe high-risk OAs differently based on insurance type. The relationship between insurance and opioid prescribing quality goes beyond where patients receive care.

Feasibility study of a Behavioural Intervention for Opioid Reduction (BIOR) for patients with chronic non-cancer pain in primary care: a protocol

INTRODUCTION

Around 30%-50% of adults suffer moderate to severe chronic pain not caused by cancer. Significant numbers are treated with opioids which over time may cease to be effective and produce side effects (eg, nausea, drowsiness and constipation). Stopping taking opioids abruptly can cause unpleasant withdrawal effects. Tapering in small steps is recommended, though some patients might struggle and need support, particularly if they have limited access to pain management alternatives. Awareness of the potential risks as well as benefits of tapering should be explored with patients.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A randomised controlled pilot feasibility study to investigate the effectiveness and feasibility of reducing high doses of opioids through a tapering protocol, education and support in primary care. Working with NHS Knowsley Place, we will identify patients taking 50 mg or above morphine equivalent dose of opioids per day to be randomly allocated to either the tapering group or tapering with support group. At an initial joint appointment with a pain consultant and General Practitioner (GP) GP tapering will be discussed and negotiated. Both groups will have their opioid reduced by 10% per week. The taper with support group will have access to additional support, including motivational counselling, realistic goal setting and a toolkit of resources to promote self-management. Some patients will successfully reduce their dose each week. For others, this may be more difficult, and the tapering reduction will be adjusted to 10% per fortnight. We assess opioid use, pain and quality of life in both groups at the start and end of the study to determine which intervention works best to support people with chronic pain who wish to stop taking opioids.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The Behavioural Intervention for Opioid Reduction feasibility study has been granted full approval by Liverpool Central Research Ethics Committee on 7 April 2022 (22/NW/0047). The current protocol version is V.1.1, date 6 July 2022. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and disseminated to patient stakeholders in a lay summary report available on the project website and in participating GP surgeries.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN 30201337.

Efficacy of interventions to reduce long term opioid treatment for chronic non-cancer pain: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To review interventions to reduce long term opioid treatment in people with chronic non-cancer pain, considering efficacy on dose reduction and discontinuation, pain, function, quality of life, withdrawal symptoms, substance use, and adverse events.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies of interventions.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library searched from inception to July 2021. Reference lists and previous reviews were also searched and experts were contacted.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION

Original research in English. Case reports and cross sectional studies were excluded.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data, and used the Cochrane risk-of-bias tools for randomised and non-randomised studies (RoB 2 and ROBINS-I). Authors grouped interventions into five categories (pain self-management, complementary and alternative medicine, pharmacological and biomedical devices and interventions, opioid replacement treatment, and deprescription methods), estimated pooled effects using random effects meta-analytical models, and appraised the certainty of evidence using GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation).

RESULTS

Of 166 studies meeting inclusion criteria, 130 (78%) were considered at critical risk of bias and were excluded from the evidence synthesis. Of the 36 included studies, few had comparable treatment arms and sample sizes were generally small. Consequently, the certainty of the evidence was low or very low for more than 90% (41/44) of GRADE outcomes, including for all non-opioid patient outcomes. Despite these limitations, evidence of moderate certainty indicated that interventions to support prescribers' adherence to guidelines increased the likelihood of patients discontinuing opioid treatment (adjusted odds ratio 1.5, 95% confidence interval 1.0 to 2.1), and that these prescriber interventions as well as pain self-management programmes reduced opioid dose more than controls (intervention v control, mean difference -6.8 mg (standard error 1.6) daily oral morphine equivalent, P<0.001; pain programme v control, -14.31 mg daily oral morphine equivalent, 95% confidence interval -21.57 to -7.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence on the reduction of long term opioid treatment for chronic pain continues to be constrained by poor study methodology. Of particular concern is the lack of evidence relating to possible harms. Agreed standards for designing and reporting studies on the reduction of opioid treatment are urgently needed.

REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020140943.