Interventions to Influence Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Noncancer Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Nudging to assist opioid tapering among chronic non-malignant pain patients: A systematic scoping review

Objectives

Use of opioids can lead to frequent and severe side effects, prompting the exploration of non-pharmacological alternatives, including nudging, to reduce opioid consumption. This review identifies and evaluates patient-targeted nudges to support opioid tapering among adults with chronic non-cancer pain.

Methods

We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and Social Science citation index for articles published from 2010 to January 2023. Eligibility criteria were based on the PICOS framework and included original peer-reviewed English language studies on adults with chronic non-cancer pain and interventions aligning with the nudge definition by Thaler and Sunstein. Studies with relevant comparators, measurable outcomes, real-world data, and pre/post-intervention measures were included. Data were manually extracted and reported in a descriptive manner. The process adhered to PRISMA-ScR reporting guidelines.

Results

Four of 222 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria. All included nudges aimed at providing information to support decision-making and behavior change. Three nudge categories were identified: increasing salience, understanding mappings, and feedback. Outcome measures were program-related, focusing on perceptions, knowledge acquisition, engagement metrics, and psychological well-being.

Conclusions

There were no statistically significant effects or only small evidence of effects in the program-related outcomes. None of the studies included a control group with standard care or no intervention comparison and none included objective measures of opioid reduction. More studies are needed to draw conclusions on the effectiveness of nudges to support opioid tapering among chronic non-cancer pain patients.

Decision Support and Behavioral Health for Reducing High-Dose Opioids in Comorbid Chronic Pain, Depression and Anxiety: Stepped-Wedge Cluster Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

High prevalence of depression or anxiety with opioid use for chronic pain complicates co-management and may influence prescribing behaviors.

OBJECTIVE

Compare clinical effectiveness of electronic medical record clinical decision support (EMR-CDS) versus additional behavioral health (BH) care management for reducing rates of high-dose opioid prescriptions.

DESIGN

Type 2 effectiveness-implementation hybrid stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial in 35 primary care clinics within a health system in LA, USA.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients aged 18+ receiving chronic opioid therapy for non-cancer pain with depression or anxiety and matched controls.

INTERVENTION

EMR-CDS included opioid risk mitigation procedures. BH care included cognitive behavioral therapy; depression or anxiety medication adjustments; and case management.

MAIN MEASURES

Outcomes of interest included difference-in-difference (DID) estimate of changes in probability for prescribing high-dose morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD ≥50 mg/day and MEDD ≥90), average MEDD, and rates of hospitalization, emergency department use, and opioid risk mitigation.

KEY RESULTS

Most participants were female with 3+ pain syndromes. Data analysis included 632 patients. Absolute risk differences for MEDD≥50 and ≥90 decreased post-index compared to pre-index (DID of absolute risk difference [95%CI]: -0.036 [-0.089, 0.016] and -0.029 [-0.060, 0.002], respectively). However, these differences were not statistically significant. The average MEDD decreased at a higher rate for the BH group compared to EMR-CDS only (DID rate ratio [95%CI]: 0.85 [0.77, 0.93]). There were no changes in hospitalization and emergency department utilization. The BH group had higher probabilities of new specialty referrals and prescriptions for naloxone and antidepressants.

CONCLUSIONS

Incorporation of a multidisciplinary behavioral health care team into primary care did not decrease high-dose prescribing; however, it improved adherence to clinical guideline recommendations for managing chronic opioid therapy for non-cancer pain.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT03889418.

The Opioid Epidemic and Faith-Based Responses in Southern Appalachia, USA: An Exploration of Factors for Successful Cross-Sector Collaboration

This study aimed to identify factors for successful cross-sector collaboration with faith-based responses to the opioid epidemic in southern Appalachia. In-depth interviews were conducted with representatives from organizations responding to the opioid epidemic (N = 25) and persons who have experienced opioid dependency (N = 11). Stakeholders perceived that collaboration is hindered by stigma, poor communication, and conflicting medical and spiritual approaches to opioid dependency. Collaborations are facilitated by cultivating compassion and trust, sharing information along relational lines, and discerning shared commitments while respecting different approaches. The study concludes with theoretical and practical implications for both religious leaders and potential cross-sector collaborators.

Reducing opioid use for chronic non-cancer pain in primary care using an evidence-based, theory-informed, multistrategic, multistakeholder approach: a single-arm time series with segmented regression

BACKGROUND

Many countries have high opioid use among people with chronic non-cancer pain. Knowledge about effective interventions that could be implemented at scale is limited. We designed a national intervention that included audit and feedback, deprescribing guidance, information on catastrophising assessment, pain neuroscience education and a cognitive tool for use by patients with their healthcare providers.

METHOD

We used a single-arm time series with segmented regression to assess rates of people using opioids before (January 2015 to September 2017), at the time of (October 2017) and after the intervention (November 2017 to August 2019). We used a cohort with historical comparison group and log binomial regression to examine the rate of psychologist claims in opioid users not using psychologist services prior to the intervention.

RESULTS

13 968 patients using opioids, 8568 general practitioners, 8370 pharmacies and accredited pharmacists and 689 psychologists were targeted. The estimated difference in opioid use was -0.51 persons per 1000 persons per month (95% CI -0.69, -0.34; p<0.001) as a result of the intervention, equating to 25 387 (95% CI 24 676, 26 131) patient-months of opioid use avoided during the 22-month follow-up. The targeted group had a significantly higher rate of incident patient psychologist claims compared with the historical comparison group (rate ratio: 1.37, 95% CI 1.16, 1.63; p<0.001), equating to an additional 690 (95% CI 289, 1167) patient-months of psychologist treatment during the 22-month follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Our intervention addressed the cognitive, affective and sensory factors that contribute to pain and consequent opioid use, demonstrating it could be implemented at scale and was associated with a reduction in opioid use and increasing utilisation of psychologist services.

Ivers N. Surfacing the causal assumptions and active ingredients of healthcare quality improvement interventions: An application to primary care opioid prescribing

Background

Efforts to maximize the impact of healthcare improvement interventions are hampered when intervention components are not well defined or described, precluding the ability to understand how and why interventions are expected to work.

Method

We partnered with two organizations delivering province-wide quality improvement interventions to establish how they envisaged their interventions lead to change (their underlying causal assumptions) and to identify active ingredients (behavior change techniques [BCTs]). The interventions assessed were an audit and feedback report and an academic detailing program. Both focused on supporting safer opioid prescribing in primary care in Ontario, Canada. Data collection involved semi-structured interviews with intervention developers (n = 8) and a content analysis of intervention documents. Analyses unpacked and articulated how the interventions were intended to achieve change and how this was operationalized.

Results

Developers anticipated that the feedback report would provide physicians with a clear understanding of their own prescribing patterns in comparison to others. In the feedback report, we found an emphasis on BCTs consistent with that assumption (feedback on behavior; social comparison). The detailing was designed to provide tailored support to enable physicians to overcome barriers to change and to gradually enact specific practice changes for patients based on improved communication. In the detailing materials, we found an emphasis on instructions on how to perform the behavior, for a range of behaviors (e.g., tapering opioids, treating opioid use disorder). The materials were supplemented by detailer-enacted BCTs (e.g., social support [practical]; goal setting [behavior]; review behavioral goal[s]).

Conclusions

The interventions included a small range of BCTs addressing various clinical behaviors. This work provides a methodological example of how to apply a behavioral lens to surface the active ingredients, target clinical behaviors, and causal assumptions of existing large-scale improvement interventions that could be applied in other contexts to optimize effectiveness and facilitate scale and spread.

The impact of opioid prescribing report cards in Medicaid

BACKGROUND: Performance feedback has been used for decades to improve health care quality and safety, with varying degrees of success. One example is the use of customized report cards that target inappropriate prescribing of high-risk medications, including opioids. Randomized controlled trials suggest that report cards are an effective tool to change opioid prescribing behavior, but their effectiveness in community settings is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of opioid prescribing report cards, which were mailed to Medicaid providers in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. METHODS: Using a quasi-experimental approach, we compared trends in opioid prescribing by Medicaid providers in Philadelphia, who received a report card in late 2017, with Medicaid providers in surrounding counties, who did not receive report cards. First, we used propensity score matching to balance observed differences in the treatment and comparison groups; matching variables included provider specialty, sex, and selected characteristics of providers' Medicaid patient panels. We then estimated a difference-in-differences model to isolate the impact of report cards on opioid prescribing. RESULTS: The analytical sample included 1,598 providers in Philadelphia and 2,117 providers in surrounding counties, who prescribed opioids to 99,548 Medicaid patients during the study period. Although the number of Medicaid patients receiving opioids and the days supplied of opioids declined in both Philadelphia and surrounding counties during the study period, there was a larger reduction in Philadelphia Medicaid than in surrounding counties after the report cards were mailed. In the 6 months after the report cards were mailed (January 2018 to June 2018) compared with the 6 months before they were mailed (July 2017 to December 2017), we estimate that the reduction in opioid prescribing in Philadelphia Medicaid amounted to nearly 3 fewer Medicaid patients with an opioid prescription per month. CONCLUSIONS: After customized opioid prescribing report cards were mailed to Medicaid providers in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, there was a statistically significant reduction in opioid prescribing to Medicaid patients relative to surrounding counties. Our findings suggest that opioid prescribing report cards with peer comparison are an effective way to influence opioid prescribing behavior among Medicaid providers. Report cards can complement other initiatives that target inappropriate opioid prescribing, such as prescription drug monitoring programs and prior authorization. DISCLOSURES: Drs Candon and Rothbard and Ms Shen received funding from Community Behavioral Health in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Drs Xue, Cole, and Donohue received funding from Pennsylvania Department of Human Services. Neither Community Behavioral Health nor the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services was involved in the study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing of the report; or the decision to submit the report for publication.

Academic detailing interventions for opioid-related outcomes: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Academic detailing (AD) is a tailored, interactive educational outreach intervention that may improve patient outcomes. Insight into the design of AD interventions and the extent to which they are effective can help inform future AD-based programmes. The objective of this scoping review was to characterize opioid-focused AD interventions and describe their findings.

METHODS

A scoping review focused on AD interventions for opioids was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE and CINAHL databases through July 1, 2021. Studies were eligible for inclusion if written in English, included interactive opioid-focused educational interventions, and were conducted either in person, virtually or via telephone. Four independent reviewers reviewed titles and abstracts. Data extraction from full-text publications was completed using a standardized form.

RESULTS

Of 6086 articles initially identified, 22 articles met the inclusion criteria and 20 unique interventions were identified. The AD intervention was either delivered one-on-one (n=16) or in a small, interactive group setting (n=4). AD interventions varied in design. Effectiveness was evaluated in terms of opioid and naloxone prescribing rates, provider knowledge gaps, provider adherence to guidelines, and intervention feasibility. Sixteen (80%) interventions resulted in statistically significant improvement in one or more outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Generally, opioid-related AD was effective and programmes were primarily conducted one-on-one between pharmacists and primary care providers for 16-30 minutes. A variety of metrics and outcomes were used to assess the success/effectiveness of AD interventions, which is an important consideration in future studies as no single metric captures the effectiveness of an educational outreach-based intervention for pain management.

A comparison of educational events for physicians and nurses in Australia sponsored by opioid manufacturers

BACKGROUND

Educational activities for physicians sponsored by opioid manufacturers are implicated in the over- and mis-prescribing of opioids. However, the implications of promotion to nurses are poorly understood. Nurses play a key role in assessing pain, addressing the determinants of pain, and administering opioid medications. We sought to understand the nature and content of pain-related educational events sponsored by opioid manufacturers and to compare events targeting physicians and nurses.

METHODS

We conducted a cross sectional, descriptive analysis of pharmaceutical company reports detailing 116,845 sponsored educational events attended by health professionals from 2011 to 2015 in Australia. We included events that were sponsored by manufacturers of prescription opioid analgesics and were pain related. We compared event characteristics across three attendee groups: (a) physicians only; (b) at least one nurse in attendance; and (c) nurses only. We coded the unstructured data using iteratively generated keywords for variables related to location, format, and content focus.

RESULTS

We identified 3,411 pain-related events sponsored by 3 companies: bioCSL/CSL (n = 15), Janssen (n = 134); and Mundipharma (n = 3,262). Pain-related events were most often multidisciplinary, including at least one nurse (1,964/3,411; 58%); 38% (1,281/3,411) included physicians only, and 5% (166/3,411) nurses only. The majority of events were held in clinical settings (61%) and 43% took the form of a journal club. Chronic pain was the most common event topic (26%) followed by cancer pain and palliative care (18%), and then generic or unspecified references to pain (15%); nearly a third (32%) of event descriptions contained insufficient information to determine the content focus. Nurse-only events were less frequently held in clinical settings (32%; p < .001) and more frequently were product launches (17%; p < .001) and a significantly larger proportion focused on cancer or palliative care (33%; p < .001), generic pain topics (27%; p < .001), and geriatrics (25%; p < .001) than physician-only or multidisciplinary events.

DISCUSSION

Opioid promotion via sponsored educational events extends beyond physicians to multidisciplinary teams and specifically, nurses. Despite lack of evidence that opioids improve outcomes for long-term chronic non-cancer pain, hundreds of sponsored educational events focused on chronic pain. Regulators should consider the validity of distinguishing between pharmaceutical companies' "promotional" and "non-promotional" activities.