Postmarketing studies program to assess the risks and benefits of long-term use of extended-release/long-acting opioids among chronic pain patients

Diagnosing Prescription Opioid Use Disorder in Patients Using Prescribed Opioids for Chronic Pain

OBJECTIVE

The diagnostic criteria for opioid use disorder, originally developed for heroin, did not anticipate the surge in prescription opioid use and the resulting complexities in diagnosing prescription opioid use disorder (POUD), including differentiation of pain relief (therapeutic intent) from more common drug use motives, such as to get high or to cope with negative affect. The authors examined the validity of the Psychiatric Research Interview for Substance and Mental Disorders, DSM-5 opioid version, an instrument designed to make this differentiation.

METHODS

Patients (N=606) from pain clinics and inpatient substance treatment who ever received a ≥30-day opioid prescription for chronic pain were evaluated for DSM-5 POUD (i.e., withdrawal and tolerance were not considered positive if patients used opioids only as prescribed, per DSM-5 guidelines) and pain-adjusted POUD (behavioral/subjective criteria were not considered positive if pain relief [therapeutic intent] was the sole motive). Bivariate correlated-outcome regression models indicated associations of 10 validators with DSM-5 and pain-adjusted POUD measures, using mean ratios for dimensional measures and odds ratios for binary measures.

RESULTS

The prevalences of DSM-5 and pain-adjusted POUD, respectively, were 44.4% and 30.4% at the ≥2-criteria threshold and 29.5% and 25.3% at the ≥4-criteria threshold. Pain adjustment had little effect on prevalence among substance treatment patients but resulted in substantially lower prevalence among pain treatment patients. All validators had significantly stronger associations with pain-adjusted than with DSM-5 dimensional POUD measures (ratios of mean ratios, 1.22-2.31). For most validators, pain-adjusted binary POUD had larger odds ratios than DSM-5 measures.

CONCLUSIONS

Adapting POUD measures for pain relief (therapeutic intent) improved validity. Studies should investigate the clinical utility of differentiating between therapeutic and nontherapeutic intent in evaluating POUD diagnostic criteria.

Clinical scoring algorithm for the prescription opioid misuse and abuse questionnaire (POMAQ)

OBJECTIVE

The Prescription Opioid Misuse and Abuse Questionnaire (POMAQ) was developed to identify prescription opioid misuse and abuse among patients with chronic pain. A clinical scoring algorithm was developed and refined to align with the patient experience.

METHODS

This study utilized data from the POMAQ validation study (3033-4, NCT02660606) conducted on a sample of patients with chronic pain living in the United States. The study was carried out in two phases. Two purposefully enriched patient samples, one for each phase, were created based on patient responses to select POMAQ items and the availability of urine and hair samples. Two clinical experts (SHS, SFB) reviewed patient data to classify prescription opioid use behavior. Classification differences were adjudicated by a third clinical expert (JTF). Comparisons were made between the final clinical classification determined by the experts and the proposed classification based on the POMAQ algorithm.

RESULTS

Sixty patients were included in Phase I (only POMAQ data) and 52 in Phase II (including POMAQ and ancillary sources [e.g. electronic medical records, urine toxicity screen]). Refinements were made to the POMAQ scoring algorithm following discussions with clinical experts to ensure it was clinically relevant. For both phases, classifications were reviewed and discussed to achieve maximal concordance of classifications across experts. The proposed scoring algorithm was then modified to maximize agreement with the expert interpretation of clinically relevant patient experiences.

CONCLUSION

The clinical scoring algorithm for the POMAQ was developed and refined to reflect clinically relevant patient behaviors identified by expert review. Future testing is needed to determine the sensitivity and specificity of this measure.

Research approaches for evaluating opioid sparing in clinical trials of acute and chronic pain treatments: Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials recommendations

ABSTRACT

Randomized clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of opioid analgesics for the treatment of acute and chronic pain conditions, and for some patients, these medications may be the only effective treatment available. Unfortunately, opioid analgesics are also associated with major risks (eg, opioid use disorder) and adverse outcomes (eg, respiratory depression and falls). The risks and adverse outcomes associated with opioid analgesics have prompted efforts to reduce their use in the treatment of both acute and chronic pain. This article presents Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) consensus recommendations for the design of opioid-sparing clinical trials. The recommendations presented in this article are based on the following definition of an opioid-sparing intervention: any intervention that (1) prevents the initiation of treatment with opioid analgesics, (2) decreases the duration of such treatment, (3) reduces the total dosages of opioids that are prescribed for or used by patients, or (4) reduces opioid-related adverse outcomes (without increasing opioid dosages), all without causing an unacceptable increase in pain. These recommendations are based on the results of a background review, presentations and discussions at an IMMPACT consensus meeting, and iterative drafts of this article modified to accommodate input from the co-authors. We discuss opioid sparing definitions, study objectives, outcome measures, the assessment of opioid-related adverse events, incorporation of adequate pain control in trial design, interpretation of research findings, and future research priorities to inform opioid-sparing trial methods. The considerations and recommendations presented in this article are meant to help guide the design, conduct, analysis, and interpretation of future trials.

Construct validity and reproducibility of the Prescription Opioid Misuse And Abuse Questionnaire (POMAQ)

OBJECTIVE

The Prescription Opioid Misuse and Abuse Questionnaire was developed to identify prescription opioid abuse and misuse among patients with chronic pain, however, evidence of construct validity and reproducibility is needed.

METHODS

Chronic pain patients were recruited from five Department of Defense Military Health System clinics across the United States. Construct validity was examined using subjective clinician-reported and patient-reported measures as well as objective information (e.g. hair/urine drug screens and electronic medical records). Test-retest reliability was assessed across 2 timepoints among a subgroup of patients with stable chronic pain.

RESULTS

Of 3,263 screened patients, 938 (28.7%) met eligibility and were enrolled; 809 (86.2%) completed the Prescription Opioid Misuse and Abuse Questionnaire. Construct validity was supported by comparison to other validated questionnaires and hair and urine screens which yielded high agreements with patient reports on the Prescription Opioid Misuse and Abuse Questionnaire. Electronic medical record data supported patients' Prescription Opioid Misuse and Abuse Questionnaire responses regarding physician and emergency room visits and opioid refills. The Prescription Opioid Misuse and Abuse Questionnaire had excellent test-retest reliability; the percentage agreement between the two Prescription Opioid Misuse and Abuse Questionnaire administrations was high (>90%) for most questions.

DISCUSSION

Results suggest that the Prescription Opioid Misuse and Abuse Questionnaire is a valid and reproducible tool that can be used to assess the presence of prescription opioid misuse and abuse among patients with chronic pain.

Establishing the content validity of the Prescription Opioid Misuse and Abuse Questionnaire (POMAQ) among chronic pain patients

OBJECTIVES

Content validation is essential in the development of patient-reported instruments to ensure relevancy and understandability. The aim was to evaluate patient understanding of the Prescription Opioid Misuse and Abuse Questionnaire (POMAQ) using cognitive interviewing among adults with chronic moderate to severe pain.

METHODS

This qualitative study involved a one-time in-clinic visit to conduct one-on-one cognitive interviews among participants with chronic moderate to severe pain from four groups: (1) Known Opioid Abuse; (2) Known Abuse of Other Substances (e.g. alcohol, benzodiazepines); (3) Opioid Non-abuse; and (4) No Chronic Opioid Use. Patients were recruited from 6 US clinical centers. Concept elicitation questions regarding misuse and abuse were asked at interview start; the POMAQ was completed via a web interface followed by a cognitive interview regarding POMAQ items and response options.

RESULTS

56 patients were enrolled. Mean age was 48.7 ± 12.3 years; 57% female; 80% Caucasian; mean duration of chronic pain was 11.2 ± 8.2 years with lower back pain predominating at 75%. Overall, the POMAQ was well-understood and received positive feedback. A few (n = 6, 11%) expressed concerns about completing the POMAQ using a secure internet site as they either indicated they were not computer savvy (n = 3, 5%) or were concerned about internet security (n = 3, 5%). Minor wording modifications were made to the POMAQ to enhance clarity and understanding of the POMAQ.

CONCLUSIONS

The POMAQ demonstrated content validity among patients with moderate to severe chronic pain and is undergoing psychometric evaluation among a larger cohort of patients.

Oral Opioid Prescribing Trends in the United States, 2002-2018

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a retrospective analysis of sequential cross-sectional data of opioid prescribing practices in patients with no prior history of opioid use.

METHODS

Individuals filling an oral opioid prescription who had 1 year of prior observation were identified from four different administrative claims databases for the period between January 1, 2002, and December 31, 2018: IBM MarketScan® Commercial Database (CCAE), Multi-State Medicaid Database (MDCD), Medicare Supplemental Database (MDCR), and Optum© De-Identified Clinformatics® Data Mart Database. Outcomes included incidence of new opioid use and characteristics of patients' first opioid prescription, including dispensed morphine milligram equivalent (MME) per day, total MME dispensed, total MME ≥300, and days' supply of prescription for ≤3 or ≥30 days.

RESULTS

There were 40,600,696 new opioid users identified. The incidence of new opioid use in the past 17 years ranged from 6% to 11% within the two commercially insured databases. Incidence decreased over time in MDCD and was consistently higher in MDCR. Total MME dispensed decreased in MDCD and increased in CCAE, with no major changes in the other databases. The proportion of patients receiving ≥30-day prescriptions decreased and the proportion of patients receiving ≤3-day prescriptions increased in MDCD, while ≥30-day prescriptions in the Optum database dramatically increased (low of 3.0% in 2003 to peak of 16.9% in 2017).

CONCLUSIONS

Opioid prescribing practices varied across different populations of insured individuals during the past 17 years. The most substantial changes in opioid prescriptions over time have occurred in MDCD, with reductions in use across multiple metrics.

Measuring problem prescription opioid use among patients receiving long-term opioid analgesic treatment: development and evaluation of an algorithm for use in EHR and claims data

Objective

Opioid surveillance in response to the opioid epidemic will benefit from scalable, automated algorithms for identifying patients with clinically documented signs of problem prescription opioid use. Existing algorithms lack accuracy. We sought to develop a high-sensitivity, high-specificity classification algorithm based on widely available structured health data to identify patients receiving chronic extended-release/long-acting (ER/LA) therapy with evidence of problem use to support subsequent epidemiologic investigations.

Methods

Outpatient medical records of a probability sample of 2,000 Kaiser Permanente Washington patients receiving ≥60 days’ supply of ER/LA opioids in a 90-day period from 1 January 2006 to 30 June 2015 were manually reviewed to determine the presence of clinically documented signs of problem use and used as a reference standard for algorithm development. Using 1,400 patients as training data, we constructed candidate predictors from demographic, enrollment, encounter, diagnosis, procedure, and medication data extracted from medical claims records or the equivalent from electronic health record (EHR) systems, and we used adaptive least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression to develop a model. We evaluated this model in a comparable 600-patient validation set. We compared this model to ICD-9 diagnostic codes for opioid abuse, dependence, and poisoning. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov as study NCT02667262 on 28 January 2016.

Results

We operationalized 1,126 potential predictors characterizing patient demographics, procedures, diagnoses, timing, dose, and location of medication dispensing. The final model incorporating 53 predictors had a sensitivity of 0.582 at positive predictive value (PPV) of 0.572. ICD-9 codes for opioid abuse, dependence, and poisoning had a sensitivity of 0.390 at PPV of 0.599 in the same cohort.

Conclusions

Scalable methods using widely available structured EHR/claims data to accurately identify problem opioid use among patients receiving long-term ER/LA therapy were unsuccessful. This approach may be useful for identifying patients needing clinical evaluation.