Assessing risk for drug overdose in a national cohort: role for both daily and total opioid dose?

Predictors of fatal and nonfatal overdose after prescription of opioids for chronic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

BACKGROUND

Higher doses of opioids, mental health comorbidities, co-prescription of sedatives, lower socioeconomic status and a history of opioid overdose have been reported as risk factors for opioid overdose; however, the magnitude of these associations and their credibility are unclear. We sought to identify predictors of fatal and nonfatal overdose from prescription opioids.

METHODS

We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science up to Oct. 30, 2022, for observational studies that explored predictors of opioid overdose after their prescription for chronic pain. We performed random-effects meta-analyses for all predictors reported by 2 or more studies using odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Twenty-eight studies (23 963 716 patients) reported the association of 103 predictors with fatal or nonfatal opioid overdose. Moderate- to high-certainty evidence supported large relative associations with history of overdose (OR 5.85, 95% CI 3.78-9.04), higher opioid dose (OR 2.57, 95% CI 2.08-3.18 per 90-mg increment), 3 or more prescribers (OR 4.68, 95% CI 3.57-6.12), 4 or more dispensing pharmacies (OR 4.92, 95% CI 4.35-5.57), prescription of fentanyl (OR 2.80, 95% CI 2.30-3.41), current substance use disorder (OR 2.62, 95% CI 2.09-3.27), any mental health diagnosis (OR 2.12, 95% CI 1.73-2.61), depression (OR 2.22, 95% CI 1.57-3.14), bipolar disorder (OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.77-2.41) or pancreatitis (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.52-2.64), with absolute risks among patients with the predictor ranging from 2-6 per 1000 for fatal overdose and 4-12 per 1000 for nonfatal overdose.

INTERPRETATION

We identified 10 predictors that were strongly associated with opioid overdose. Awareness of these predictors may facilitate shared decision-making regarding prescribing opioids for chronic pain and inform harm-reduction strategies SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/vznxj/).

Between guidelines and clinical trials: evidence-based advice on the pharmacological management of non-specific chronic low back pain

The pharmacological management of nonspecific chronic low back pain (NCLBP) aims to restore patients' daily activities and improve their quality of life. The management of NCLBP is not well codified and extremely heterogeneous, and residual symptoms are common. Pharmacological management should be considered as co-adjuvant to non-pharmacological therapy, and should be guided by the symptoms reported by the patients. Depending on the individual severity of NCLPB, pharmacological management may range from nonopioid to opioid analgesics. It is important to identify patients with generalized sensory hypersensitivity, who may benefit from dedicated therapy. This article provides an evidence-based overview of the principles of pharmacological management of NCLPB.

Overdose and suicide are different phenomena among opioid users that require different clinical management

Given the high rates of mental health comorbidity among opioid users, and increasing rates of opioid prescription for chronic pain, psychiatrists and mental health clinicians are likely to treat patients who are dependent on opioids. Among such patients, many will have histories of opioid overdose or suicide attempts. It is tempting to assume that these are related behaviours and that 'accidental' overdoses are actually suicide attempts. We provide evidence here to demonstrate that while some overdoses are intentional, most are not. More than half of deaths among opioid users are due to unintentional overdose. Suicides constitute a minority: less than 10% of heroin user deaths are estimated to be due to suicide, as are 20-30% of prescribed opioid fatalities. Moreover, suicide attempts are more commonly made using means other than opioids. Overdose and suicide among opioid dependent patients are two distinct phenomena, associated with different risk factors, that need to be separately assessed and their respective risk managed.

The Use of Opioids in the Management of Chronic Pain: Synopsis of the 2022 Updated U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and U.S. Department of Defense Clinical Practice Guideline

DESCRIPTION

In May 2022, leadership within the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) approved a joint clinical practice guideline for the use of opioids when managing chronic pain. This synopsis summarizes the recommendations that the authors believe are the most important to highlight.

METHODS

In December 2020, the VA/DoD Evidence-Based Practice Work Group assembled a team to update the 2017 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline for Opioid Therapy for Chronic Pain. The guideline development team included clinical stakeholders and conformed to the National Academy of Medicine's tenets for trustworthy clinical practice guidelines. The guideline team developed key questions to guide a systematic evidence review that was done by an independent third party and distilled 20 recommendations for care using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system. The guideline team also created 3 one-page algorithms to help guide clinical decision making. This synopsis presents the recommendations and highlights selected recommendations on the basis of clinical relevance.

RECOMMENDATIONS

This guideline is intended for clinicians who may be considering opioid therapy to manage patients with chronic pain. This synopsis reviews updated recommendations for the initiation and continuation of opioid therapy; dose, duration, and taper of opioids; screening, assessment, and evaluation; and risk mitigation. New additions are highlighted, including recommendations about the use of buprenorphine instead of full agonist opioids; assessing for behavioral health conditions and factors associated with higher risk for harm, such as pain catastrophizing; and the use of pain and opioid education to reduce the risk for prolonged opioid use for postsurgical pain.

Association of opioid fills with centers for disease control and prevention opioid guidelines and payer coverage policies: physician, insurance and geographic factors

Background The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued guidelines and certain healthcare payers have made pharmacy coverage changes (PCC) focusing on regulating prescription opioids. Aim We evaluated differences in the rate of first-time opioid fills at doses ≥ 50 morphine milligram equivalents (MME)/day and first-time opioid fills with benzodiazepine fill overlap following the CDC guidelines and following a PCC between provider types, geographic locations, and insurance types. Method We used OptumLabs® Data Warehouse claims data between 2014 and 2018. Subjects were opioid naïve non-cancer care patients, 18 years and older who had an identified chronic pain condition ICD diagnosis within 2 weeks prior to their first-time opioid fill. We used multiple treatment period segmented regression analysis with interaction terms to test the differences between primary care providers (PCPs) and specialist providers (SPs), urban and rural primary care service areas (PCSAs), and Medicare Advantage (MA) and commercially insured patients (CIPs) in their first-time opioid fill patterns. Results Prescribing first-time opioid fills at doses ≥ 50MME/day declined following the CDC guidelines and PCC, the decline was greater among SPs than PCPs and in rural PCSAs than urban PCSAs. Also, following the CDC guidelines, the decline was greater among MA patients however following the PCC the decline was greater among CIPs. There were no differences in rate of first-time opioid fill with benzodiazepine overlap between groups. Conclusion Responses to the CDC opioid guidelines and a PCC differed between PCPs and SPs, urban and rural PCSAs, and when prescribing to MA and CIPs. Understanding these differences is important to help inform future guidelines.

Opioid prescription patterns among urologists as compiled from within Medicare

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to evaluate opioid prescribing patterns of urologists across the United States (U.S.) and the District of Columbia (D.C.) using publicly available data from Medicare Part D. Our secondary analysis was to identify any loco-regional trends that may exist within the U.S.

METHODS

We queried publicly reported information from the Part D prescriber database, which is compiled from beneficiaries enrolled within the Medicare Part D prescription drug program. Only providers with the specialty description of urologist were included in this study.

RESULTS

Between 2013 and 2017, a five-year average of 452 901 opioid claims by 9640 urologists - amounting to $5 357 114 USD and comprising 3.78% of all claims made - were identified. The state of Maine featured the highest percentage of opioid claims in relation to all claims (5.81%). West Virginia had the greatest average total opioid claims per provider (90), while Michigan featured the highest average proportion of opioid claims per provider (10.63%). The fewest opioid claims were processed within the Mid-Atlantic and New England regions.

CONCLUSIONS

A multitude of factors likely contributes to variability between states. Urologists should be increasingly aware of their individual prescription tendencies and use available drug monitoring programs to reduce unnecessary prescriptions, all while providing more targeted and appropriate pain management.

Inches, Centimeters, and Yards: Overlooked Definition Choices Inhibit Interpretation of Morphine Equivalence

OBJECTIVE

Morphine-standardized doses are used in clinical practice and research to account for molecular potency. Ninety milligrams of morphine equivalents (MME) per day are considered a "high dose" risk threshold in guidelines, laws, and by payers. Although ubiquitously cited, the "CDC definition" of daily MME lacks a clearly defined denominator. Our objective was to assess denominator-dependency on "high dose" classification across competing definitions.

METHODS

To identify definitional variants, we reviewed literature and electronic prescribing tools, yielding 4 unique definitions. Using Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs data (July to September 2018), we conducted a population-based cohort study of 3,916,461 patients receiving outpatient opioid analgesics in California (CA) and Florida (FL). The binary outcome was whether patients were deemed "high dose" (>90 MME/d) compared across 4 definitions. We calculated I2 for heterogeneity attributable to the definition.

RESULTS

Among 9,436,640 prescriptions, 42% overlapped, which led denominator definitions to impact daily MME values. Across definitions, average daily MME varied 3-fold (range: 17 to 52 [CA] and 23 to 65 mg [FL]). Across definitions, prevalence of "high dose" individuals ranged 5.9% to 14.2% (FL) and 3.5% to 10.3% (CA). Definitional variation alone would impact a hypothetical surveillance study trying to establish how much more "high dose" prescribing was present in FL than CA: from 39% to 84% more. Meta-analyses revealed strong heterogeneity (I2 range: 86% to 99%). In sensitivity analysis, including unit interval 90.0 to 90.9 increased "high dose" population fraction by 15%.

DISCUSSION

While 90 MME may have cautionary mnemonic benefits, without harmonization of calculation, its utility is limited. Comparison between studies using daily MME requires explicit attention to definitional variation.

Unintentional Opioid Overdoses Treated at University Clinic of Toxicology-Skopje in a Nine-Year-Period

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to assess the epidemiological profile of unintentional opioid overdoses, the prevalence and number of psychotropic substances involved in opioid overdoses.

METHODS

This was a descriptive study, in which 180 participants were enrolled, and covered a nine-years-period. For collecting data was used the National patient electronic system "My term". The variables as gender, age, duration of opioid dependence, number of overdoses, type of substance, number of antidote ampoules, duration of hospitalization were analyzed. Severity of poisoning was made by using the Poison severity score.

RESULTS

Opioid overdose cases were significantly higher among males than females. Mean age with standard deviation (SD) was 32.23 ± 6.71 years. Mean years (±SD) of duration of opioid use disorder was 11.60 ± 5.89 years. The most commonly used primary substance was methadone in 68.89% and heroin in 31.11% cases. Twenty patients were treated with mechanical ventilation because of the severe respiratory depression. Poison severity score was moderate in 51.11%, severe in 45.56% and fatal in 3.33% of the cases.

CONCLUSION

Most of the cases, predominantly males used one or two substances. The combination of methadone and benzodiazepine was most frequently used and the most common way was by injecting the abused substances. In most of the subjects PSS score was moderate and severe with no differences between genders.

Performance of a Predictive Model versus Prescription-Based Thresholds in Identifying Patients at Risk of Fatal Opioid Overdose

Background: Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMPs) collect controlled substance prescriptions dispensed within a state. Many PDMP programs perform targeted outreach (i.e., "unsolicited reporting") for patients who exceed numerical thresholds, however, the degree to which patients at highest risk of fatal opioid overdose are identified has not been compared with one another or with a predictive model. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed using statewide PDMP data for Maryland residents aged 18 to 80 years with an opioid fill between April to June 2015. The outcome was opioid-related overdose death in 2015 or 2016. A multivariable logistic regression model and three PDMP thresholds were evaluated: (1) multiple provider episodes; (2) high daily average morphine milligram equivalents (MME); and (3) overlapping opioid and benzodiazepine prescriptions. Results: The validation cohort consisted of 170,433 individuals and 244 deaths. The predictive model captured more individuals who died (46.3% of total deaths) and had a higher death rate (7.12 per 1000) when the risk score cutoff (0.0030) was selected for a comparable size of high-risk individuals (n = 15,881) than those meeting the overlapping opioid/benzodiazepine prescriptions (n = 17,440; 33.2% of total deaths; 4.64 deaths per 1000) and high MME (n = 14,675; 24.6% of total deaths; 4.09 deaths per 1000) thresholds. Conclusions: The predictive model identified more individuals at risk of fatal opioid overdose as compared with PDMP thresholds commonly used for unsolicited reporting. PDMP programs could improve their targeting of unsolicited reports to reach more individuals at risk of overdose by using predictive models instead of simple threshold-based approaches.

Identification and treatment of obstructive sleep apnea by a primary care team with a subset focus on chronic pain management

BACKGROUND

Patients diagnosed with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), who also consume prescription opioids, have a greater likelihood of morbidity and mortality. This study evaluated whether a primary care team, focused on chronic pain care management, could use a validated questionnaire (STOP-Bang) and motivational follow-up, to increase identification and treatment of OSA.

METHODS

This study was a retrospective, dual arm, pre/post controlled study. Participants of this study included the complete chronic pain management sub group treated by this primary care team. Participants were ≥ 18 years old and prescribed daily opioids for treatment of chronic pain. All participants had a multifaceted, individualized, educational meeting that included completing a STOP-Bang questionnaire. Participants who received a score ≥ three were advised to follow up with their primary care physician. Participants were seen quarterly throughout the study.

RESULTS

The primary outcome of this study was that 65% of participants with likely OSA were using CPAP for a minimum of 12 months (range of 12-25 months, 18-month average) post-intervention vs. 37% CPAP-use in the control group (12 months of observation), both groups were chronic opioid users with OSA. This was a 28% relative improvement (p = 0.0034). A secondary outcome was that 8.9% of non-prior CPAP users obtained CPAP post- intervention; a 56.7% pre-post improvement (p = 0.0064, x2 = 10.08 with 1 degree of freedom). Also, participants who were likely to have OSA (STOP-Bang score ≥ 3 or had a positive polysomnography (AHI >5 with comorbidities)) compared to those unlikely to have OSA (STOP-Bang score <3 or had a negative polysomnography (AHI <5)) in this study were more likely to be male, have a higher BMI, have hypertension, have cardiovascular disease and/or have diabetes (all types).

CONCLUSION

Team based care management for participants taking prescription opioids, where STOP-Bang questionnaires were completed, were associated with an increase in the identification and treatment of OSA.

The evaluating prescription opioid changes in veterans (EPOCH) study: Design, survey response, and baseline characteristics

In the United States (US), long-term opioid therapy has been commonly prescribed for chronic pain. Since recognition of the opioid overdose epidemic, clinical practice guidelines have recommended tapering long-term opioids to reduced doses or discontinuation. The Effects of Prescription Opioid Changes for veterans (EPOCH) study is a national population-based prospective observational study of US Veterans Health Administration primary care patients designed to assess effects of evolving opioid prescribing practice on patients treated with long-term opioids for chronic pain. A stratified random sampling design was used to identify a survey sample from the target population of patients treated with opioid analgesics for ≥ 6 months. Demographic, diagnostic, visit, and pharmacy dispensing data were extracted from existing datasets. A 2016 mixed-mode mail and telephone survey collected patient-reported data, including the main patient-reported outcomes of pain-related function (Brief Pain Inventory interference; BPI-I scores 0–10, higher scores = worse) and health-related quality of life. Data on survey participants and non-participants were analyzed to assess potential nonresponse bias. Weights were used to account for design. Linear regression models were used to assess cross-sectional associations of opioid treatment with patient-reported measures. Of 14,160 patients contacted, 9253 (65.4%) completed the survey. Participants were older than non-participants (63.9 ± 10.6 vs. 59.6 ± 13.0 years). The mean number of bothersome pain locations was 6.8 (SE 0.04). Effectiveness of pain treatment and quality of pain care were rated fair or poor by 56.1% and 45.3%, respectively. The opioid daily dosage range was 1.6 to 1038.2 mg, with mean = 50.6 mg (SE 1.1) and median = 30.9 mg (IQR 40.7). Among the 73.2% of patients who did not receive long-acting opioids, the mean daily dosage was 30.4 mg (SE 0.6) and mean BPI-I was 6.4 (SE 00.4). Among patients who received long-acting opioids, the mean daily dosage was 106.2 mg (SE 2.8) and mean BPI-I was 6.8 (SE 0.07). Higher daily dosage was associated with worse pain-related function and quality of life among patients without long-acting opioids, but not among patients with long-acting opioids. Future analyses will use follow-up data to examine effects of opioid dose reduction and discontinuation on patient outcomes.

Risk Factors for Severe Opioid-Related Adverse Events in a National Cohort of Medical Hospitalizations

BACKGROUND

Opioids are a leading cause of adverse drug events in the hospital. Guidelines recommend that physicians assess the risks of opioids and discuss them with patients when considering opioid use. There are no studies examining patient- and prescribing-related risk factors for opioid-related adverse drug events (ORADEs) in hospitalized medical patients.

OBJECTIVE

To identify independent risk factors for severe ORADEs in hospitalized medical patients.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

PATIENTS

Medical patients hospitalized at US, non-federal, and acute care facilities, with at least one pharmacy charge for an opioid during hospitalization. We excluded patients with metastatic malignancy, hospice, or palliative care billing codes.

MAIN MEASURES

We used Cox proportional hazards modeling to identify risk factors for severe ORADEs, defined by a pharmacy charge for naloxone. Candidate risk factors were chosen a priori, based on clinical grounds and prior literature.

KEY RESULTS

Among 731,208 hospitalizations (median age 60, 56.5% female), a severe ORADE occurred in 2727 (0.4%). Independent risk factors included patient characteristics (advanced age, female gender), comorbidities (congestive heart failure, opioid abuse/dependence, non-opioid drug abuse/dependence, psychosis, depression, obstructive sleep apnea), organ failures on admission (respiratory failure, shock/hypotension, renal failure, hepatic failure, acidosis, and neurologic failure), medication co-administrations (antipsychotics and short-acting benzodiazepines), and characteristics of the opioid prescriptions themselves (total dose for the day, parenteral route of administration, and receipt of multiple types of opioids in a day). Although a risk prediction model derived from these factors performed well on stratified k-fold cross-validation (average c-statistics 0.68-0.71), the low incidence of the outcome limited the positive predictive value of the risk score.

CONCLUSIONS

In this national cohort of medical patients, we identified several risk factors for ORADEs that can be used to inform physician decision-making, conversations with patients about risk, and development and targeting of harm reduction strategies for at-risk populations.

Prescribing patterns before and after a non-fatal drug overdose using Tennessee's controlled substance monitoring database linked to hospital discharge data

We performed a statewide evaluation of prescribing patterns of controlled substances (CS) before and after an overdose, using Tennessee's Hospital Discharge Data System and the Controlled Substance Monitoring Database (CSMD). Adults' first non-fatal overdose discharges either from the emergency department (ED) or inpatient (IP) stay occurring between 2013 and 2016 were linked to prescriptions in the CSMD. The difference in the proportion of patients filling a prescription before versus after an overdose was calculated. Included were 49,398 patients with an overdose and a prescription record; most (60.5%) were treated in the ED. Among any drug type overdose the percentage of patients who filled a CS prescription within a year of experiencing an overdose was as follows: opioid analgesics: 59.1%, benzodiazepines: 37.3%, stimulants: 5.0%, muscle relaxants: 3.4%, concurrent opioid-benzodiazepines: 24.0% with the percent difference from before to after similar in both settings. Among patients treated for an opioid overdose, this represented a decrease in opioid analgesics filled by 9.7% (95%CI: -11.2, -8.3) among those treated in the ED, and by 7.1% (95% CI: -8.3, -5.9) among treated inpatients. Among patients treated for a heroin overdose, 12.2% (95%CI: -15.2, -9.3) fewer of those treated in the ED and 8.8% (95%CI: -15.0, -2.7%) fewer of treated inpatients filled a CS prescription in that year. The most common opioid analgesics included hydrocodone and oxycodone. The number of patients filling buprenorphine for treatment increased in the year after overdoses associated with any drug or opioids but decreased among those treated for a heroin overdose.

A Cross-Sectional Web-Based Survey of Medical Practitioners in India to Assess their Knowledge, Attitude, Prescription Practices, and Barriers toward Opioid Analgesic Prescriptions

CONTEXT

Inadequate training of medical practitioners is a key factor responsible for inappropriate use of opioid analgesics.

AIMS

We assessed the current knowledge, attitude, prescribing practices, and barriers perceived by the Indian medical practitioners in three tertiary care hospitals toward the use of opioid analgesics.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Web-based survey of registered medical practitioner employed at three chosen tertiary health care institutions in New Delhi.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED

Descriptive analysis of survey responses was carried out. Comparative analysis was done using Chi-square test, independent samples t-test, and Pearson correlation coefficient.

RESULTS

The response rate was 10.4% (n = 308). Two-thirds of the participants (61.7%) had never received formal pain management training, and 86.7% participants would like further training. Most participants (71.1%) agreed that opioids should be prescribed in cancer pain, while 26.3% agreed that opioids should be prescribed in noncancer pain. Half of the participants agreed that SOS (if necessary) dosing schedule (48.4%), low dosage (61.7%), and short duration of use (51.4%) could decrease the harmful effect of opioids. Lack of information about opioid-related policies and addiction potential were identified as the most common barriers to prescribing opioids. Those seeing more patients with chronic noncancer pain come across opioid misuse and diversion more often (P = 0.02). Those who understood addiction were more likely to agree that patients of chronic cancer pain with substance use disorders should be prescribed opioid analgesics (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Indian medical practitioners felt the need for formal pain management training. There is a lack of consensus on how to manage the pain using opioid analgesics. Tough regulations on medical and scientific use of opioids are the most commonly reported barrier to prescribing them.

Characteristics of New Opioid Use Among Medicare Beneficiaries: Identifying High-Risk Patterns

BACKGROUND

Opioid prescription patterns, including long-term use, multiple prescribers, and high opioid doses, increase the risk for adverse outcomes; however, previous research in older adult populations has primarily described opioid dose patterns using average daily dose measures or using very high thresholds (i.e., > 100 morphine milligram equivalents [MME] per day).

OBJECTIVE

To describe prescription patterns by peak dose among older adults who have newly initiated opioid use in 2014 and describe long-term opioid use and the use of multiple pharmacies and prescribers among those with peak opioid doses over 50 and over 90 MME per day.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of Medicare Part D prescription claims data (5% sample) for beneficiaries aged 65 years and older who were prescribed ≥ 1 opioid prescription in 2014 and did not have an opioid prescription in the preceding 180 days. Within a 1-year period of follow-up, we used prescription claims to characterize individuals' opioid exposure, measuring long-term opioid use (≥ 90 days of continuous opioid supply), unique opioid prescribers, and unique opioid-dispensing pharmacies. Peak MME was defined as the maximum daily MME received across all overlapping opioid prescriptions in the observation period.

RESULTS

144,127 beneficiaries without an opioid prescription in the previous 6 months filled ≥ 1 opioid prescription in 2014. During the 1-year follow-up period, 6.5% of beneficiaries transitioned to long-term opioid use; 39.5% received opioid prescriptions from > 1 prescriber; 18.1% filled opioid prescriptions from > 1 pharmacy; and 21.8% had a peak MME of 50-89. Among the 28.1% of beneficiaries exposed to a peak MME > 50, 8.6% developed long-term opioid use; 7.0% had 3 or more opioid dispensing pharmacies; and 28.0% had 3 or more opioid prescribers. Among the 6.2% of beneficiaries exposed to a peak MME ≥ 90, 18.5% developed long-term opioid use; 13.0% had 3 or more opioid dispensing pharmacies; and 39.6% had 3 or more opioid prescribers.

CONCLUSIONS

High doses of opioids were prescribed for about one quarter (28%) of Medicare beneficiaries with new opioid use in 2014. Having multiple opioid prescribers or multiple opioid dispensing pharmacies was common, especially among those prescribed higher doses. These prescription patterns can be particularly helpful to identify older adults with increased opioid-related risk.

DISCLOSURES

No funding supported this study. Raman reports research grants from GlaxoSmithKline not related to this study. Roberts was supported by a CTSA grant from NCATS awarded to the University of Kansas Medical Center for Frontiers: The Heartland Institute for Clinical and Translational Research (#KL2TR000119). The other authors have no potential conflicts to report.

Impact of Opioid Dose Reduction and Risk Mitigation Initiatives on Chronic Opioid Therapy Patients at Higher Risk for Opioid-Related Adverse Outcomes

Objective

We aimed to determine if opioid risk reduction initiatives including dose reduction and risk mitigation strategies for chronic noncancer pain patients receiving chronic opioid therapy (COT) had a differential impact on average daily opioid doses of COT patients at higher risk for opioid-related adverse outcomes compared with lower-risk patients.

Design

Interrupted time series.

Setting

Group Health Cooperative (GH), a health care delivery system and insurance within Washington State, between 2006 and 2014.

Population

GH enrollees on COT defined as receiving a supply of 70 or more days of opioids within 90 days using electronic pharmacy data for filled prescriptions.

Methods

We compared the average daily morphine equivalent doses (MED) of COT patients with and without each of the following higher-risk characteristics: mental disorders, substance use disorders, sedative use, and male gender.

Results

In all four pairwise comparisons, the higher-risk subgroup had a higher average daily MED than the lower-risk subgroup across the study period. Adjusted for covariates, modest differences in the annual rate of reduction in average daily MED were noted between higher- and lower-risk subgroups in three pairwise comparisons: those with mental disorders vs without (-8.2 mg/y vs -5.2 mg/y, P = 0.005), with sedative use vs without (-9.2 mg/y vs -5.8 mg/y, P = 0.004); mg), in men vs women (-8.8 mg/y vs -5.9 mg/y, P = 0.01).

Conclusion

Using clinical policy initiatives in a health care system, dose reductions were achieved among COT patients at higher risk for opioid-related adverse outcomes that were at least as large as those among lower-risk patients.

When the Best of Intentions Leads to Bad Outcomes

There is no question that the opioid use problem in America has reached unacceptable proportions. What is in question, however, is the best way to address this problem. Unfortunately, this is a multidimensional problem that will not be solved with a simple unidimensional solution. This commentary examines the multidimensional nature of this problem and the resultant guidelines that have been proposed to address it. There is a cautionary tale of the historical dangers of applying an “obvious” solution to a problem, only to find that more investigation and an iterative approach can actually lead to the correct solution. In particular, the authors question the wisdom of implementing guidelines that have no provisions for re-examination, to assess both intended as well as unintended consequences that might occur. This is the standard for good evidence-based guideline development and implementation. To do less, even under such dire circumstances as these, is to provide less than optimum medical care.

High-risk prescribing and opioid overdose: prospects for prescription drug monitoring program-based proactive alerts

To develop a simple, valid model to identify patients at high risk of opioid overdose-related hospitalization and mortality, Oregon prescription drug monitoring program, Vital Records, and Hospital Discharge data were linked to estimate 2 logistic models; a first model that included a broad range of risk factors from the literature and a second simplified model. Receiver operating characteristic curves, sensitivity, and specificity of the models were analyzed. Variables retained in the final model were categories such as older than 35 years, number of prescribers, number of pharmacies, and prescriptions for long-acting opioids, benzodiazepines or sedatives, or carisoprodol. The ability of the model to discriminate between patients who did and did not overdose was reasonably good (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.82, Nagelkerke R = 0.11). The positive predictive value of the model was low. Computationally simple models can identify high-risk patients based on prescription history alone, but improvement of the predictive value of models may require information from outside the prescription drug monitoring program. Patient or prescription features that predict opioid overdose may differ from those that predict diversion.

Anticipating the effects of restricting high-dose preparations of strong opioids in Australia: A population-based analysis to inform the current policy debate

PURPOSE

Countries worldwide are developing a variety of strategies to combat the opioid epidemic, such as restricting access to high-strength opioid formulations. We aimed to examine the dispensing patterns of strong opioids by dose units (DUs), age, and sex.

METHODS

We used Australian population-level dispensing data from January 2003 to December 2015 and categorised strong opioids by DU: very low, low, moderate, and high, corresponding to total daily doses of less than or equal to 25, 26 to 50, 51 to 100, and greater than 100 morphine milligramme equivalents, respectively. We measured trends in strong opioid use as dispensings/1000 population/year and stratified dispensing in 2015 by patient age and sex.

RESULTS

From 2003 to 2015, strong opioid dispensing of very low, low, moderate, and high DU increased 6.7-, 6.2-, 2.2-, and 1.8-fold, respectively. The increase in very low and low DU dispensing was driven primarily by oxycodone (5, 10, and 15 mg tablets and capsules) and buprenorphine transdermal patches. In 2015, the number of dispensings/1000 population for very low, low, moderate, and high DU were 180.3, 77.0, 52.7, and 34.8, respectively. Females aged greater than or equal to 85 years had the highest opioid use, ranging from 157.1 dispensings/1000 population for high DU to 2104.5 dispensings/1000 population for very low DU. In contrast, the high DU dispensings in males aged 25 to 64 years exceeded their female counterparts by approximately 1.3-fold.

CONCLUSION

Relative to moderate and high DU strong opioids, dispensing of very low and low DU strong opioids increased dramatically during the study period in Australia. Future studies investigating opioids use and harms in elderly females and males between 25 to 64 years are warranted.

Opioid tolerance and clinically recognized opioid poisoning among patients prescribed extended-release long-acting opioids

BACKGROUND

In recognition of potential for increased overdose risk, drug labels for extended-release and long-acting (ER/LA) opioids emphasize the need for established opioid tolerance prior to initiating high dosages.

OBJECTIVES

Describe the proportion of patients with opioid tolerance prior to initiation of 90 morphine milligram equivalents (MME) ER/LA opioids and examine subsequent risk of opioid poisoning.

METHODS

We used Truven Health Analytics' MarketScan Databases (2006-2015) to identify patients initiating ER/LA opioids ≥90 MME. We examined prescription histories and describe the proportion of initiators with opioid tolerance (defined as ≥7 days of 60 MME in the prior 14 days). We adjusted for age, sex, year of initiation, and baseline comorbidities using inverse probability of treatment weighted Cox proportional hazards models. We estimated adjusted hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the effect of opioid tolerance on the risk of clinically recognized opioid poisoning (based on diagnosis codes) in specific periods (0-7, 8-30, 31-90, and 91-365 days) following initiation.

RESULTS

Among 372 038 initiators, 38% did not meet opioid tolerance criteria. The proportion of nontolerant initiators was highest among those initiating methadone (44%) and fentanyl (42%). Nontolerant patients were 37% more likely to be diagnosed with opioid poisoning (adjusted hazard ratios = 1.37 [1.07, 1.76]) in the week following ER/LA initiation.

CONCLUSIONS

Over one-third of patients initiating ≥90 MME ER/LA opioids did not have evidence of opioid tolerance. The 7 days following high dose ER/LA initiation may represent a high-risk period for clinically diagnosed opioid poisoning in patients who do not have prior opioid tolerance.

Methodologic limitations of prescription opioid safety research and recommendations for improving the evidence base

PURPOSE

The ongoing opioid epidemic has claimed more than a quarter million Americans' lives over the past 15 years. The epidemic began with an escalation of prescription opioid deaths and has now evolved to include secondary waves of illicit heroin and fentanyl deaths, while the deaths due to prescription opioid overdoses are still increasing. In response, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) moved to limit opioid prescribing with the release of opioid prescribing guidelines for chronic noncancer pain in March 2016. The guidelines represent a logical and timely federal response to this growing crisis. However, CDC acknowledged that the evidence base linking opioid prescribing to opioid use disorders and overdose was grades 3 and 4.

METHODS

Motivated by the need to strengthen the evidence base, this review details limitations of the opioid safety studies cited in the CDC guidelines with a focus on methodological limitations related to internal and external validity.

RESULTS

Internal validity concerns were related to poor confounding control, variable misclassification, selection bias, competing risks, and potential competing interventions. External validity concerns arose from the use of limited source populations, historical data (in a fast-changing epidemic), and issues with handling of cancer and acute pain patients' data. We provide a nonexhaustive list of 7 recommendations to address these limitations in future opioid safety studies.

CONCLUSION

Strengthening the opioid safety evidence base will aid any future revisions of the CDC guidelines and enhance their prevention impact.

Opioid Overdose History, Risk Behaviors, and Knowledge in Patients Taking Prescribed Opioids for Chronic Pain

Objective

More than 100 million adults in the United States experience chronic pain, and prescription opioids are the third most widely prescribed class of medications. Current opioid overdose prevention efforts almost exclusively target illicit opioid users, and little is known about the experience of overdose among patients being treated for chronic pain (CP) with a prescription opioid.

Methods

Patients experiencing CP for three or more months and receiving a prescription opioid for pain management (N = 502) completed a self-report survey that asked questions about opioid overdose history, past 30-day risk factors, and knowledge of opioid overdose, overdose risk, and naloxone.

Results

Approximately one in five CP participants reported experiencing a lifetime overdose. CP participants reported engaging in several behaviors associated with overdose risk and were unlikely to have been trained to administer naloxone. Fewer than 50% of participants answered any knowledge item correctly. The likelihood of having experienced an overdose increased as the scores on the SOAPP-R and DSM-5 opioid use disorder checklist increased, and a SOAPP-R score of 7 or higher or meeting DSM-5 mild opioid use disorder criteria were significantly associated with reporting a lifetime overdose (85% and 84% of participants who experienced an overdose, respectively).

Conclusions

Opioid overdose occurs at a high rate among CP participants, and this group is relatively uninformed about risk factors for overdose. Established SOAPP-R and DSM thresholds provide an opportunity to identify participants at elevated risk for having experienced an opioid overdose. These data support development of additional concentrated efforts to prevent overdose among chronic pain patients.

Prescription Opioid Use is Associated with Virologic Failure in People Living with HIV

Prescription opioid misuse is a rising epidemic in the U.S., and people living with HIV are at increased risk. We assessed the association between prescription opioid use and virologic failure in HIV+ patients in the South Texas HIV Cohort. We found prescription opioid use was significantly associated with virologic failure, after adjustment for age, race, gender, insurance status, years living with HIV, reported HIV risk factor, chronic hepatitis C virus infection, current substance abuse, and care engagement. These findings suggest that opioid analgesic use may have negative consequences beyond misuse in people living with HIV.

Effect of a high dosage opioid prior authorization policy on prescription opioid use, misuse, and overdose outcomes

BACKGROUND

High dosage opioid use is a risk factor for opioid-related overdose commonly cited in guidelines, recommendations, and policies. In 2012, the Oregon Medicaid program developed a prior authorization policy for opioid prescriptions above 120 mg per day morphine equivalent dose (MED). This study aimed to evaluate the effects of that policy on utilization, prescribing patterns, and health outcomes.

METHODS

Using administrative claims data from Oregon and a control state (Colorado) between 2011 and 2013, we used difference-in-differences analyses to examine changes in utilization, measures of high risk opioid use, and overdose after introduction of the policy. We also evaluated opioid utilization in a cohort of individuals who were high dosage opioid users before the policy.

RESULTS

Following implementation of Oregon's high dosage policy, the monthly probability of an opioid fill over 120 mg MED declined significantly by 1.7 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI]; -2.0% to -1.4%), whereas it increased significantly by 1.0 percentage points (95% CI 0.4% to 1.7%) for opioid fills &lt; 61 mg MED. Fills of medications used to treat neuropathic pain also increased by 1.2 percentage points (95% CI 0.7% to 1.8%). The monthly probability of multiple pharmacy use declined by 0.1 percentage points (-0.2% to -0.0) following the prior authorization, but there were no significant changes in ED encounters or hospitalizations for opioid overdose. Among individuals who were using a high dosage opioid before the policy, there was a 20.3 percentage point (95% CI -15.3% to -25.3%) decline in estimated probability of having a high dosage fill after the policy.

CONCLUSIONS

Oregon's prior authorization policy was effective at reducing high dosage opioid prescriptions. While multiple pharmacy use also declined, we found no impact on opioid overdose were observed.

Impact of Dual Use of Department of Veterans Affairs and Medicare Part D Drug Benefits on Potentially Unsafe Opioid Use

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the prevalence and consequences of receiving prescription opioids from both the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Medicare Part D.

METHODS

Among US veterans enrolled in both VA and Part D filling 1 or more opioid prescriptions in 2012 (n = 539 473), we calculated 3 opioid safety measures using morphine milligram equivalents (MME): (1) proportion receiving greater than 100 MME for 1 or more days, (2) mean days receiving greater than 100 MME, and (3) proportion receiving greater than 120 MME for 90 consecutive days. We compared these measures by opioid source.

RESULTS

Overall, 135 643 (25.1%) veterans received opioids from VA only, 332 630 (61.7%) from Part D only, and 71 200 (13.2%) from both. The dual-use group was more likely than the VA-only group to receive greater than 100 MME for 1 or more days (34.3% vs 10.9%; adjusted risk ratio [ARR] = 3.0; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.9, 3.1), have more days with greater than 100 MME (42.5 vs 16.9 days; adjusted difference = 16.4 days; 95% CI = 15.7, 17.2), and to receive greater than 120 MME for 90 consecutive days (7.8% vs 3.1%; ARR = 2.2; 95% CI = 2.1, 2.3).

CONCLUSIONS

Among veterans dually enrolled in VA and Medicare Part D, dual use of opioids was associated with more than 2 to 3 times the risk of high-dose opioid exposure.

Opioid analgesic dose and the risk of misuse, overdose, and death: A narrative review

PURPOSE

Despite the rise in serious adverse events paralleling increased prescription opioid analgesic use in the United States over the past 2 decades, the association between opioid analgesic dose and the risk of serious adverse health outcomes is incompletely characterized. We sought to synthesize the medical literature for observational studies examining the association between opioid analgesic dose and the risk of serious adverse health outcomes, with particular attention to the outcomes of misuse, abuse, addiction, overdose, and death.

METHODS

Searching MEDLINE using PubMed and bibliography review, we identified 22 observational studies published between 2000 and 2015 that assessed the association between opioid analgesic dose and the risk of serious adverse health outcomes. Some of these studies had significant methodological limitations. Twelve reviewed studies examined the outcomes of misuse, overdose, or death; no studies examining the risk of addiction or abuse met our criteria for inclusion.

RESULTS

The results of multiple studies clearly indicate an increasing risk of serious adverse health outcomes associated with increasing opioid analgesic dose. In particular, the risk of misuse, overdose, and death increases with increasing opioid analgesic dose. However, there is no opioid dose inflection point beyond which the risk of these adverse health outcomes increases. No opioid analgesic dose is without risk.

CONCLUSIONS

The reviewed studies show an increasing risk of serious adverse health outcomes-including misuse, overdose, and death-associated with increasing opioid analgesic dose. Further research is needed to characterize the relationship between opioid analgesic dose and the risk of addiction and abuse. This analysis could inform policy actions for regulators and clinical decision making for providers.

A 15-year overview of increasing tramadol utilisation and associated mortality and the impact of tramadol classification in the United Kingdom

PURPOSE

This study aimed to develop hypotheses to explain the increasing tramadol utilisation, evaluate the impact of tramadol classification, and explore the trend between tramadol utilisation and related deaths in the United Kingdom.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study used individual patient data, the Clinical Practice Research Datalink from 1993 to 2015, to calculate monthly defined daily dose (DDD)/1000 registrants, monthly prevalence and incidence of tramadol users, annual supply days, and mean daily dose of tramadol. Aggregated-level national statistics and reimbursement data from 2004 to 2015 were also used to quantify annual and monthly tramadol DDD/1000 inhabitants and rate of tramadol-related deaths in England and Wales. Interrupted time-series analysis was used to evaluate the impact of tramadol classification in June 2014.

RESULTS

Prevalence of tramadol users increased from 23 to 97.6/10 000 registrants from 2000 to 2015. Both annual dose and annual supply days of existing tramadol users were higher than new users. Level and trend of monthly utilisation (β₂ : -12.9, β₃ : -1.6) and prevalence of tramadol users (β₂ : -6.4, β₃ : -0.37) significantly reduced after classification. Both annual tramadol utilisation and rate of tramadol-related deaths increased before tramadol classification and decreased thereafter.

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing tramadol utilisation was influenced by the increase in prevalence and incidence of tramadol users, mean daily dose, and day of supply. Prevalence of tramadol users, tramadol utilisation, and reported deaths declined after tramadol classification. Future studies need to evaluate the influencing factors to ensure the safety of long-term tramadol use.

Endogenous Opiates and Behavior: 2015

This paper is the thirty-eighth consecutive installment of the annual review of research concerning the endogenous opioid system. It summarizes papers published during 2015 that studied the behavioral effects of molecular, pharmacological and genetic manipulation of opioid peptides, opioid receptors, opioid agonists and opioid antagonists. The particular topics that continue to be covered include the molecular-biochemical effects and neurochemical localization studies of endogenous opioids and their receptors related to behavior, and the roles of these opioid peptides and receptors in pain and analgesia, stress and social status, tolerance and dependence, learning and memory, eating and drinking, drug abuse and alcohol, sexual activity and hormones, pregnancy, development and endocrinology, mental illness and mood, seizures and neurologic disorders, electrical-related activity and neurophysiology, general activity and locomotion, gastrointestinal, renal and hepatic functions, cardiovascular responses, respiration and thermoregulation, and immunological responses.

Cohort Study of the Impact of High-Dose Opioid Analgesics on Overdose Mortality

OBJECTIVE

Previous studies examining opioid dose and overdose risk provide limited granularity by milligram strength and instead rely on thresholds. We quantify dose-dependent overdose mortality over a large spectrum of clinically common doses. We also examine the contributions of benzodiazepines and extended release opioid formulations to mortality.

DESIGN

Prospective observational cohort with one year follow-up.

SETTING

One year in one state (NC) using a controlled substances prescription monitoring program, with name-linked mortality data.

SUBJECTS

Residential population of North Carolina (n = 9,560,234), with 2,182,374 opioid analgesic patients.

METHODS

Exposure was dispensed prescriptions of solid oral and transdermal opioid analgesics; person-years calculated using intent-to-treat principles. Outcome was overdose deaths involving opioid analgesics in a primary or additive role. Poisson models were created, implemented using generalized estimating equations.

RESULTS

Opioid analgesics were dispensed to 22.8% of residents. Among licensed clinicians, 89.6% prescribed opioid analgesics, and 40.0% prescribed ER formulations. There were 629 overdose deaths, half of which had an opioid analgesic prescription active on the day of death. Of 2,182,374 patients prescribed opioids, 478 overdose deaths were reported (0.022% per year). Mortality rates increased gradually across the range of average daily milligrams of morphine equivalents. 80.0% of opioid analgesic patients also received benzodiazepines. Rates of overdose death among those co-dispensed benzodiazepines and opioid analgesics were ten times higher (7.0 per 10,000 person-years, 95 percent CI: 6.3, 7.8) than opioid analgesics alone (0.7 per 10,000 person years, 95 percent CI: 0.6, 0.9).

CONCLUSIONS

Dose-dependent opioid overdose risk among patients increased gradually and did not show evidence of a distinct risk threshold. There is urgent need for guidance about combined classes of medicines to facilitate a better balance between pain relief and overdose risk.

Drug Overdose: Differing Risk Models for Women and Men among Opioid Users with Non-Cancer Pain

OBJECTIVE

To examine risk factors for drug overdose by sex reflecting differing patterns of opioid and other drug use.

DESIGN

National privately insured cohort.

SUBJECTS

206,869 subjects filling ≥2 opioid prescriptions from January 2009 through July 2012.

METHODS

Sex-specific prediction models for future drug overdose developed and validated using variables measured within 6 months after starting opioids: demographics, substance use, comorbidities, opioid dose, and psychoactive drugs. Logistic regression and split-sample validation were used.

RESULTS

Area under the receiver operating curves (AUCs) for both sex-specific risk models (0.80) were higher (P < 0.001) than for daily opioid dose alone. Risk factors for drug overdose were similar by sex but effects differed. For both sexes, substance use was the strongest predictor but the adjusted odds ratio (AOR) [95% CI] was 5.95 [4.33, 8.06] for women vs. 4.69 [3.24, 6.68] for men. AORs for daily opioid dose rose monotonically in men to 2.42 [1.76, 3.28] for high vs. low dose but were non-monotonic in women with 1.79 [1.35, 2.35] for high dose. AOR for 1-60 days of antidepressants vs. none was significant only in men (1.98 [1.32, 2.9]). AOR for benzodiazepine use was higher in men than women (2.75 vs 2.35, respectively). Zolpidem use was significant only in women. AUCs for sex-specific models were lower for the opposite sex and significantly lower for the men's model in the women's derivation dataset.

CONCLUSIONS

These models reveal similar risk factors by sex for drug overdose in opioid users but significant differences in effects that, if validated in other cohorts, may inform differing risk management strategies.

Risk-factors for methadone-specific deaths in Scotland's methadone-prescription clients between 2009 and 2013

AIM

To quantify gender, age-group and quantity of methadone prescribed as risk factors for drugs-related deaths (DRDs), and for methadone-specific DRDs, in Scotland's methadone-prescription clients.

DESIGN

Linkage to death-records for Scotland's methadone-clients with one or more Community Health Index (CHI)-identified methadone prescriptions during July 2009 to June 2013.

SETTING

Scotland's Prescribing Information System and National Records of Scotland.

MEASUREMENTS

Covariates defined at first CHI-identified methadone prescription, and person-years at-risk (pys) thereafter until the earlier of death-date or 31 December 2013. Methadone-specific DRDs were defined as: methadone implicated but neither heroin nor buprenorphine. Hazard ratios (HRs) were assessed using proportional hazards regression.

FINDINGS

Scotland's CHI-identified methadone-prescription cohort comprised 33,128 clients, 121,254 pys, 1,171 non-DRDs and 760 DRDs (6.3 per 1,000 pys), of which 362 were methadone-specific. Irrespective of gender, methadone-specific DRD-rate, per 1,000 pys, was higher in the 35+ age-group (4.2; 95% CI: 3.6-4.7) than for younger clients (1.9; 95% CI: 1.5-2.2). For methadone-specific DRDs, age-related HRs (e.g., 2.9 at 45+ years; 95% CI: 2.1-3.9) were steeper than for all DRDs (1.9; 95% CI: 1.5-2.4); there was no hazard-reduction for females; no gender by age-group interaction; and, unlike for all DRDs, the highest quintile for quantity of prescribed methadone at cohort-entry (>1960mg) was associated with increased HR (1.8; 95% CI: 1.3-2.5).

CONCLUSION

Higher methadone-specific DRD rates in older clients, irrespective of gender, call for better understanding of methadone's pharmaco-dynamics in older, opioid-dependent clients, many with progressive physical or mental ill-health.

A Detailed Exploration Into the Association of Prescribed Opioid Dosage and Overdose Deaths Among Patients With Chronic Pain

BACKGROUND

High opioid dosage has been associated with overdose, and clinical guidelines have cautioned against escalating dosages above 100 morphine-equivalent mg (MEM) based on the potential harm and the absence of evidence of benefit from high dosages. However, this 100 MEM threshold was chosen somewhat arbitrarily.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association of prescribed opioid dosage as a continuous measure in relation to risk of unintentional opioid overdose to identify the range of dosages associated with risk of overdose at a detailed level.

METHODS

In this nested case-control study with risk-set sampling of controls, cases (opioid overdose decedents) and controls were identified from a population of patients of the Veterans Health Administration who were prescribed opioids and who have a chronic pain diagnosis. Unintentional fatal opioid analgesic overdose was measured from National Death Index records and prescribed opioid dosage from pharmacy records.

RESULTS

The average prescribed opioid dosage was higher (P<0.001) for cases (mean=98.1 MEM, SD=112.7; median=60, interquartile range, 30-120), than controls (mean=47.7 MEM, SD=65.2; median=25, interquartile range, 15-45). In a ROC analysis, dosage was a moderately good "predictor" of opioid overdose death, indicating that, on average, overdose cases had a prescribed opioid dosage higher than 71% of controls.

CONCLUSIONS

A clear cut-point in opioid dosage to distinguish between overdose cases and controls was not found. However, lowering the recommended dosage threshold below the 100 MEM used in many recent guidelines would affect proportionately few patients not at risk for overdose while potentially benefitting many of those at risk for overdose.

CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain--United States, 2016

IMPORTANCE

Primary care clinicians find managing chronic pain challenging. Evidence of long-term efficacy of opioids for chronic pain is limited. Opioid use is associated with serious risks, including opioid use disorder and overdose.

OBJECTIVE

To provide recommendations about opioid prescribing for primary care clinicians treating adult patients with chronic pain outside of active cancer treatment, palliative care, and end-of-life care.

PROCESS

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) updated a 2014 systematic review on effectiveness and risks of opioids and conducted a supplemental review on benefits and harms, values and preferences, and costs. CDC used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework to assess evidence type and determine the recommendation category.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Evidence consisted of observational studies or randomized clinical trials with notable limitations, characterized as low quality using GRADE methodology. Meta-analysis was not attempted due to the limited number of studies, variability in study designs and clinical heterogeneity, and methodological shortcomings of studies. No study evaluated long-term (≥1 year) benefit of opioids for chronic pain. Opioids were associated with increased risks, including opioid use disorder, overdose, and death, with dose-dependent effects.

RECOMMENDATIONS

There are 12 recommendations. Of primary importance, nonopioid therapy is preferred for treatment of chronic pain. Opioids should be used only when benefits for pain and function are expected to outweigh risks. Before starting opioids, clinicians should establish treatment goals with patients and consider how opioids will be discontinued if benefits do not outweigh risks. When opioids are used, clinicians should prescribe the lowest effective dosage, carefully reassess benefits and risks when considering increasing dosage to 50 morphine milligram equivalents or more per day, and avoid concurrent opioids and benzodiazepines whenever possible. Clinicians should evaluate benefits and harms of continued opioid therapy with patients every 3 months or more frequently and review prescription drug monitoring program data, when available, for high-risk combinations or dosages. For patients with opioid use disorder, clinicians should offer or arrange evidence-based treatment, such as medication-assisted treatment with buprenorphine or methadone.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The guideline is intended to improve communication about benefits and risks of opioids for chronic pain, improve safety and effectiveness of pain treatment, and reduce risks associated with long-term opioid therapy.

Dental opioid prescribing and multiple opioid prescriptions among dental patients: Administrative data from the South Carolina prescription drug monitoring program

BACKGROUND

Despite increased attention to dentists' roles in curbing opioid misuse, abuse, and diversion, information regarding prescribing practices and the frequency of multiple concurrent opioid prescriptions among dental patients is limited.

METHODS

The authors reviewed South Carolina prescription drug monitoring program data representing dispensed medication for patients prescribed at least 1 opioid by a dentist during the most recently available 2-year time frame (2012-2013). The authors used descriptive analyses to examine the types and frequency of dental opioid prescriptions and the frequency of existing multiple concurrent opioid prescriptions among dental patients.

RESULTS

Nearly all dispensed dental opioid prescriptions (99.9%; n = 653,650) were for immediate-release opioids and were initial prescription fills (96.2%). Hydrocodone (76.1%) and oxycodone (12.2%) combination products were the most frequently dispensed opioids prescribed by dentists. People younger than 21 years received 11.2% of dentist-prescribed opioids dispensed. Patients with multiple concurrent opioid prescriptions were identified within 30-day (n = 113,818), 90-day (n = 166,124), and 180-day (n = 205,576) time frames.

CONCLUSIONS

Dentists prescribed a high volume of the immediate-release opioids dispensed in South Carolina. A notable minority of dental patients had incidents of multiple preexisting opioid prescriptions, a factor implicated in patient misuse, abuse, overdose, and diversion.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Use of a prescription drug monitoring program before prescribing provides a record of controlled substances dispensed to a patient and may inform prescribing, coordination of care, and addiction screening or referral. Patients should receive information regarding misuse behaviors and their risks, as well as the importance of secure storage and disposal of leftover opioid medications.

CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain - United States, 2016

This guideline provides recommendations for primary care clinicians who are prescribing opioids for chronic pain outside of active cancer treatment, palliative care, and end-of-life care. The guideline addresses 1) when to initiate or continue opioids for chronic pain; 2) opioid selection, dosage, duration, follow-up, and discontinuation; and 3) assessing risk and addressing harms of opioid use. CDC developed the guideline using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework, and recommendations are made on the basis of a systematic review of the scientific evidence while considering benefits and harms, values and preferences, and resource allocation. CDC obtained input from experts, stakeholders, the public, peer reviewers, and a federally chartered advisory committee. It is important that patients receive appropriate pain treatment with careful consideration of the benefits and risks of treatment options. This guideline is intended to improve communication between clinicians and patients about the risks and benefits of opioid therapy for chronic pain, improve the safety and effectiveness of pain treatment, and reduce the risks associated with long-term opioid therapy, including opioid use disorder, overdose, and death. CDC has provided a checklist for prescribing opioids for chronic pain (http://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/38025) as well as a website (http://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/prescribingresources.html) with additional tools to guide clinicians in implementing the recommendations.

Drug Overdose in a Retrospective Cohort with Non-Cancer Pain Treated with Opioids, Antidepressants, and/or Sedative-Hypnotics: Interactions with Mental Health Disorders

BACKGROUND

Opioid analgesics and other psychoactive drugs may pose an even greater risk for drug overdose in persons with mental health disorders.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to examine interactions of filled prescriptions for opioids, benzodiazepines, antidepressants, and zolpidem with mental health disorders in regard to drug overdose.

DESIGN

The study was a retrospective cohort review.

SUBJECTS

Subjects were national HMO beneficiaries aged 18-64 years, enrolled at least 1 year (01/2009 to 07/2012), who filled at least two prescriptions for Schedule II or III opioids for non-cancer pain.

MAIN MEASURES

The outcome was the first inpatient or outpatient drug overdose after the first filled opioid prescription. Predictors were calculated in 6-month intervals and exactly 6 months before a drug overdose: opioid use (mean daily morphine-equivalent dose), benzodiazepine use (days' supply), antidepressant use (days' supply), zolpidem use (days' supply), mental health disorders (depression, anxiety/PTSD, psychosis), pain-related conditions, and substance use disorders (alcohol, other drug).

KEY RESULTS

A total of 1,385 (0.67%) subjects experienced a drug overdose (incidence rate 421/100,000 person-years). The adjusted odds ratios (AOR) for overdose among all subjects rose monotonically with daily opioid dose, but highest (AOR = 7.06) for persons with depression and a high opioid dose (≥100 mg) versus no depression or opioid use. Longer-term antidepressants (91-180 days) were protective for persons with depression, with 20% lower AORs for overdose versus short-term (1-30 days) or none. For persons without depression, the AORs of overdose were increased for antidepressant use, but greatest (AOR = 1.98) for short-term use versus none. The AORs of overdose increased with the duration of benzodiazepine therapy among all subjects, with over 2.5-fold higher AORs for 91-180 days versus none.

CONCLUSIONS

Opioids and longer-duration benzodiazepines were associated with drug overdose among all subjects, but opioid risk was greatest for persons with depression. Antidepressant use > 90 days reduced the odds of overdose for persons with depression, but all antidepressant use increased the risk for persons without depression.

National cohort study of opioid analgesic dose and risk of future hospitalization

BACKGROUND

High daily and total doses of opioid analgesics (OAs) increase the risk for drug overdose and may be risks for all-cause hospitalization.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association of OA dose measures with future all-cause hospitalization.

DESIGN/PATIENTS

Cohort study of 87,688 national health maintenance organization enrollees aged 45 to 64 years with noncancer pain who filled ≥2 OA prescriptions from January 2009 to July 2012.

METHODS

Outcomes were all-cause hospitalization and hospital days in 6-month intervals after the first OA was filled. In generalized linear mixed models, we examined interactions of 5 daily OA dose categories and 5 total dose categories in each 6-month interval adjusted for demographics, clinical conditions, psychotropic drugs, and current hospitalization. For high total OA doses, percentage of days covered by OA prescriptions in 6 months was examined.

RESULTS

Over 3 years, an average of 12% of subjects were hospitalized yearly for a mean 6.5 (standard deviation = 8.5) days. Compared with no OAs, adjusted odds of future hospitalization for high total opioid dose (>1830 mg) were 35% to 44% greater depending on daily dose category (all P < 0.05), but total OA dose ≤1830 mg had weak or no association with future hospitalization regardless of daily OA dose. For high total OA doses, odds of hospitalization were 41% to 51% greater for categories of percentage of time on OAs above >50% (>3 months) versus no OAs (all P < 0.05). Similar effects were observed for hospital days.

CONCLUSIONS

Higher total OA doses for >3 months within a 6-month period significantly increased the risk for all-cause hospitalization and longer inpatient stays in the next 6 months.