Trends in Opioid Prescribing by General Dentists and Dental Specialists in the U.S., 2012-2019

The Correlation of Surgical Setting With Perioperative Opioid Prescriptions for Wide-Awake Carpal Tunnel Release

BACKGROUND

Prior studies have compared perioperative opioid prescriptions between carpal tunnel release (CTR) performed wide-awake and with traditional anesthetic techniques, but the association of opioid prescriptions with surgical setting has not been fully explored. The current study assessed the association of opioid prescriptions with surgical setting (office or operating room) for wide-awake CTR.

METHODS

Patients with open CTR were identified in an administrative claims database (PearlDiver). Exclusion criteria included age less than 18 years, preoperative data less than 6 months, postoperative data less than 1 month, bilateral surgery, concomitant hand surgery, and traditional anesthesia (general anesthesia, sedation, or regional block). Patients were stratified by surgical setting (office or operating room) and matched by age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, and geographic region. Prior opioid prescriptions, opioid dependence/abuse, substance use disorder, back/neck pain, generalized anxiety, and major depression were identified. Opioid prescriptions within 7 days before and 30 days after surgery were characterized.

RESULTS

Each matched cohort included 5713 patients. Compared with patients with surgery in the operating room, fewer patients with office-based surgery filled opioid prescriptions (45% vs 62%), and those prescriptions had lower morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs, median 130 vs 188). These findings were statistically significant on univariate and multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Following office-based CTR, fewer patients filled opioid prescriptions, and filled prescriptions had lower MME. This likely reflects patient and provider attitudes about pain control and opioid utilization. Further patient- and provider-level investigation may provide additional insights that could aid in efforts to reduce perioperative opioid utilization across surgical settings.

Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment in oral health settings: A scoping review

OBJECTIVES

Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) is an effective evidence-based model to provide early intervention and treatment to people with substance use disorders across diverse health settings. Yet, how SBIRT has been implemented within oral health settings and its associated outcomes has not been explored. This scoping review assessed how SBIRT has been implemented in oral health settings in the U.S. and discusses the implications for SBIRT integration in dentistry and oral health research, education and practice.

METHODS

Five scholarly databases were searched using a scoping review methodology for relevant literature, yielding seven articles that met inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Findings from seven U.S. studies show that SBIRT has been implemented into oral health settings in three distinct ways: through education/training, as an intervention and in one national survey. Findings of this scoping review support the inclusion of SBIRT education for oral health professionals in both practice and clinical environments and offer examples of existing models for future implementation and study.

CONCLUSIONS

The scant literature on SBIRT intervention effects in dental settings-both within and outside of the U.S.-underscores the need for more empirical work to better understand how SBIRT impacts dental providers' knowledge, practices, referrals and ultimately, patient outcomes.

Trajectories of opioid prescribing by general dentists, specialists, and oral and maxillofacial surgeons in the United States, 2015-2019

BACKGROUND

Despite decreases in opioid prescribing from 2016 through 2019, some dentists (general, specialists, oral and maxillofacial surgeons) in the United States continue to prescribe opioids at high rates. The authors' objective was to define dentists' trajectories of opioid prescribing.

METHODS

The authors identified actively prescribing dentists from the IQVIA Longitudinal Prescription data set, from 2015 through 2019. Group-based trajectory modeling identified opioid prescribing trajectories on the basis of dentists' annual prescribing rates for the overall sample (model 1) and for high prescribers (model 2). The authors used χ2 or Mann-Whitney U tests to characterize the model 2 trajectory groups.

RESULTS

In model 1 (n = 199,145 prescribers), group-based trajectory modeling identified 8 trajectories that were grouped into 5 categories. A total of 14.8% were nonprescribers who composed less than 1% of all prescriptions, low prescribers (3 groups; 46.0%) prescribed at low rates (2015: 5.5%-16.9%; 2019: 1.5%-11.9%), decliners (7.3%) decreased prescribing rapidly (2015: 29.4%; 2019: 5.1%), moderately high prescribers (2 groups; 28.5%) prescribed moderately (2015: 28.7% and 39.2%; 2019: 18.1% and 28.8%), and consistently high prescribers (3.4%) prescribed at high rates (2015: 54.6%; 2019: 44.7%). In model 2, from consistently high prescribers (n = 6,845), 4 trajectories were identified. Of these 4 groups, 1 group (7.5%) declined prescribing rapidly. The groups did not differ meaningfully; however, the rapid decliners included fewer oral and maxillofacial surgeons (13.0% vs 18.4%), saw more Medicaid patients (2.5% vs 1.0%), and had higher opioid prescribing rates in 2015 (95.5% vs 91.6%) (P < .001 for all).

CONCLUSIONS

The authors identified variations in dentists' opioid prescribing rates. Although 60% of dentists decreased prescribing rates by 30% through 83%, 3.4% of dentists consistently prescribed at high rates.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Some dentists continue to prescribe opioids at high levels, indicating that additional information is needed to better inform policy and clinical decision making.

Association between the COVID-19 outbreak and opioid prescribing by U.S. dentists

BACKGROUND

U.S. data on opioid prescribing by dentists are limited to 2019. More recent data are needed to understand the effect of the COVID-19 outbreak on dental opioid prescribing, characterize current practices, and determine if dental opioid stewardship initiatives are still warranted.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association between the COVID-19 outbreak and the rate of opioid prescribing by U.S. dentists.

METHODS

During February-April 2023, the authors conducted a cross-sectional analysis of the IQVIA Longitudinal Prescription Database, which reports 92% of prescriptions dispensed in U.S. retail pharmacies. The authors calculated the monthly dental opioid dispensing rate, defined as the monthly number of dispensed opioid prescriptions from dentists per 100,000 U.S. individuals, during January 2016-February 2020 and June 2020-December 2022. To prevent distortions in trends, data from March-May 2020, when dental opioid dispensing declined sharply, were excluded. Using linear segmented regression models, the authors assessed for level and slope changes in the dental opioid dispensing rate during June 2020.

RESULTS

Analyses included 81,189,605 dental opioid prescriptions. The annual number of prescriptions declined from 16,105,634 in 2016 to 8,910,437 in 2022 (-44.7%). During January 2016-February 2020, the dental opioid dispensing rate declined -3.9 (95% CI: -4.3, -3.6) per month. In June 2020, this rate abruptly increased by 31.4 (95% CI: 19.3, 43.5) and the monthly decline in the dental opioid dispensing rate slowed to -2.1 (95% CI: -2.6, -1.6) per month. As a result, 6.1 million more dental opioid prescriptions were dispensed during June 2020-December 2022 than would be predicted had trends during January 2016-February 2020 continued.

DISCUSSION

U.S. dental opioid prescribing is declining, but the rate of this decline slowed after the COVID-19 outbreak. Findings highlight the continued importance of dental opioid stewardship initiatives.

Endogenous opiates and behavior: 2022

This paper is the forty-fifth consecutive installment of the annual anthological review of research concerning the endogenous opioid system, summarizing articles published during 2022 that studied the behavioral effects of molecular, pharmacological and genetic manipulation of opioid peptides and receptors as well as effects of opioid/opiate agonists and antagonists. The review is subdivided into the following specific topics: molecular-biochemical effects and neurochemical localization studies of endogenous opioids and their receptors (1), the roles of these opioid peptides and receptors in pain and analgesia in animals (2) and humans (3), opioid-sensitive and opioid-insensitive effects of nonopioid analgesics (4), opioid peptide and receptor involvement in tolerance and dependence (5), stress and social status (6), learning and memory (7), eating and drinking (8), drug abuse and alcohol (9), sexual activity and hormones, pregnancy, development and endocrinology (10), mental illness and mood (11), seizures and neurologic disorders (12), electrical-related activity and neurophysiology (13), general activity and locomotion (14), gastrointestinal, renal and hepatic functions (15), cardiovascular responses (16), respiration and thermoregulation (17), and immunological responses (18).

Evaluating the Impact of an mHealth Platform for Managing Acute Postoperative Dental Pain: Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Postoperative dental pain is pervasive and can affect a patient's quality of life. Adopting a patient-centric approach to pain management involves having contemporaneous information about the patient's experience of pain and using it to personalize care.

Objective

In this study, we evaluated the use of a mobile health (mHealth) platform to collect pain-related patient-reported outcomes over 7 days after the patients underwent pain-inducing dental procedures; we then relayed the information to the dentist and determined its impact on the patient's pain experience.

Methods

The study used a cluster-randomized experimental study design with an intervention arm where patients were prompted to complete a series of questions relating to their pain experience after receiving automated text notifications on their smartphone on days 1, 3, 5, and 7, with the resulting information fed back to dentists, and a control arm where patients received usual care. Providers were randomized, and patients subsequently assumed the enrollment status of their providers. Providers or their staff identified eligible patients and invited them to participate in the study. Provider interviews and surveys were conducted to evaluate acceptance of the mHealth platform.

Results

A total of 42 providers and 1525 patients participated. For the primary outcome (pain intensity on a 1 to 10 scale, with 10 being the most painful), intervention group patients reported an average pain intensity of 4.8 (SD 2.6), while those in the control group reported an average pain intensity of 4.7 (SD 2.8). These differences were not significant. There were also no significant differences in secondary outcomes, including pain interference with activity or sleep, patient satisfaction with pain management, or opioid prescribing. Patient surveys revealed reluctance to use the app was mostly due to technological challenges, data privacy concerns, and a preference for phone calls over texting. Providers had high satisfaction with the app and suggested integrating additional features, such as an in-system camera for patients to upload pictures and videos of the procedural site, and integration with the electronic health record system.

Conclusions

While the mHealth platform did not have a significant impact on acute postoperative pain experience, patients and providers indicated improvement in patient-provider communication, patient-provider relationship, postoperative complication management, and ability to manage pain medication prescribing. Expanded collaboration between mHealth developers and frontline health care providers can facilitate the applicability of these platforms, further help improve its integration with the normal clinic workflow, and assist in moving toward a more patient-centric approach to pain management.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Clinical Practice Guideline for Prescribing Opioids: United States, 2022: What dentists need to know

BACKGROUND

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published the Clinical Practice Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Pain-United States, 2022 (CDCCPG) to replace the 2016 guideline. This guideline was designed to serve as a clinical tool to improve communication between clinicians and patients and empower them to make informed, person-centered decisions regarding pain management and the prescribing of opioids. It is intended for primary care and other clinicians, including dentists, who provide pain management for adults with acute, subacute, and chronic pain.

TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED

This article summarizes the CDCCPG, with an emphasis on information of relevance to dentistry.

RESULTS

For dentists, the most important recommendations for pain management are that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications are first-line medications for acute dental pain, interdisciplinary care for chronic orofacial pain is indicated, and opioids should only be prescribed for acute dental pain for a maximum of 3 days after risk assessment.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

The CDCCPG contains a great deal of relevant information that can help dentists and dental specialists make safe, effective, and evidence-based decisions in providing pain control for their patients.

Trends in dispensed prescriptions for opioids, sedatives, benzodiazepines, gabapentin, and stimulants to children by general dentists, 2012-2019

PURPOSE

Opioids, benzodiazepines and sedatives can manage dental pain, fear and anxiety but have a narrow margin of safety in children. General dentists may inappropriately prescribe gabapentin and stimulants. National evidence on dispensing rates of these high-alert medicines by dentists to children is limited.

METHODS

We utilize join-point regression to identify changes in fills for opioids, sedatives, benzodiazepines, gabapentin, and stimulants to children <18 years from 2012 to 2019 in a national dataset comprising 92% of dispensed outpatient prescriptions by dentists.

RESULTS

From 2012 to 2019, 3.8 million children filled prescriptions for high-alert drugs from general dentists. National quarterly dispensing of high-alert drugs decreased 63.1%, from 10456.0 to 3858.8 days per million. Opioids accounted for 69.4% of high-alert prescriptions. From 2012 to 2019, fills for opioids, sedatives, benzodiazepines, and stimulants decreased by 65.2% (7651.8 to 2662.7), 43.4% (810.9 to 458.7), 43.6% (785.7 to 442.7) and 89.3% (825.6 to 88.6 days per million), respectively. Gabapentin increased 8.1% (121.8 to 131.7 days per million). A significant decrease in high-alert fills occurred in 2016, (-6.0% per quarter vs. -1.6% pre-2016, P-value<0.001), especially for opioids (-7.0% vs. -1.2%, P-value<0.001). Older teenagers (15-17 years) received 42.5% of high-alert prescriptions. Low-income counties in the South were overrepresented among top-prescribing areas in 2019.

CONCLUSIONS

We found promising national decreases in fills for high-alert medicines to children by general dentists from 2012 to 2019. However, older teenagers and children in some counties continued to receive dental opioids at high rates. Future efforts should address non-evidence-based pain management in these groups.

De-Implementing Opioids for Dental Extractions (DIODE): a multi-clinic, cluster-randomized trial of clinical decision support strategies in dentistry

BACKGROUND

Opioid pain relievers are commonly prescribed following dental extractions, but evidence shows that non-opioid analgesics often provide adequate pain relief with fewer risks. The current study examined clinical decision support (CDS) as a tool for de-implementing opioid prescribing in dentistry.

METHODS

This prospective, cluster-randomized trial examined CDS for dental pain management at 22 HealthPartners Dental Group clinics in Minnesota. Dental providers (n = 49) were randomized to deliver care using CDS, CDS with patient education materials (CDS-E), or standard practice (SP). Randomization was stratified by provider type (dentist vs. oral surgeon) and baseline opioid prescribing volume. Patient records of dental extractions were examined for January 2019 through May 2021, representing a 12-month baseline and 15-month intervention period (N = 12,924). Opioid prescription at the visit (no vs. yes) was the primary outcome. Data were analyzed using generalized linear mixed models, adjusting for patient sex and age, extraction complexity, and baseline prescribing strata (volume and provider type).

RESULTS

Patients were 56.2% female, with a mean age of 46.7 (SD = 20.0) years. Providers were 8% oral surgeons, 57% female, and with a mean age of 43.7 (SD = 11.2) years. There were significant decreases in opioid prescribing during the study (P < 0.001), representing a continuation of pre-existing trends to reduce opioid prescribing in these dental practices. There were no significant differences in opioid prescribing between CDS and SP (OR = 1.29; 97.5% CI = 0.93, 1.79; P = 0.08), or CDS-E and SP arms (OR = 1.27; 97.5% CI = 0.86, 1.79; P = 0.18). The direction of the association favored greater reductions in opioid prescribing in the SP arm. Despite training and implementation support, utilization of the CDS was low, particularly among oral surgeons, who were significantly more likely than other dentists to prescribe opioids. Among non-oral surgeon providers with the opportunity to access it, CDS utilization was not significantly associated with opioid prescribing.

CONCLUSIONS

Equipping dentists with CDS resources, whether alone or accompanied by patient education materials, did not accelerate reductions in opioid prescribing beyond those observed in standard practice. Strategies are needed to enhance CDS utilization for patient care and safety surrounding analgesia following dental extractions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03584789.

Opioid prescribing by oral and maxillofacial surgeons in the United States, 2016-2019

OBJECTIVE

To describe opioid prescribing trends among oral and maxillofacial surgeons (OMFS).

METHODS

Prescriptions by OMFS were identified from IQVIA Longitudinal Prescription Dataset, 2016-2019. OMFS-based, patient-based and population-based prescribing rates and changes in high-risk opioid prescribing were calculated annually. We used linear regression to describe trends.

RESULTS

There were 13.9 million opioid prescriptions among 12.5 million patients (627 prescriptions/OMFS/year). Hydrocodone and oxycodone decreased by 20.9% and 39.2% (p < 0.05), while tramadol and codeine increased by 24.3% and 6.1% (p < 0.05), respectively. Opioid prescribing rates significantly decreased by 27 prescriptions/OMFS/year, 18.6 patients/OMFS/year and by 0.9 prescriptions/100,000 population/year (p < 0.05 for all). From 2016 to 2019, the proportion of opioids >3 days decreased by 54.2% (p < 0.05) and prescriptions ≥50 MME/day decreased by 66.3% (p < 0.05). Although the number of opioid prescriptions by OMFS decreased in most states, 12% of states experienced increases.

CONCLUSION

Opioid prescribing, especially high-risk prescribing, by OMFS has decreased. However, targeted interventions are warranted in some areas.