Opioid-Related Harms: Simplistic Solutions to the Crisis Ineffective and Cause Collateral Damage

Beneficial opioid management strategies: A review of the evidence for the use of opioid treatment agreements

Background: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) guidelines recommend opioid treatment agreements to reduce the misuse and abuse of opioids, but evidence of their effectiveness has not been well-established. This controversy has led to their varied use in primary care settings. The purpose of this review is to collect studies that assess the value of opioid treatment agreements and associated opioid misuse outcomes in patients with chronic non-cancer pain. Methods: This study used a modified preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) approach which is organized by five distinct elements or steps: beginning with a clearly formulated question, using the question to develop clear inclusion criteria to identify relevant studies, using an approach to appraise the studies or a subset of the studies, summarizing the evidence using an explicit methodology, and interpreting the findings of the review. Results: Of 283 articles identified, six eligible studies were evaluated and assessed for quality. The study design, setting, and participants varied across the studies evaluated, and the methods of measuring primary and secondary outcomes were also diverse across all studies. One study was a randomized clinical trial (RCT), four studies were retrospective cohort studies (RCS), and one study was a prospective cohort study (PCS). The design, methods, and indication for misuse of these studies contributed to quality scores of very low for one study, low for four studies, and moderate for one study. Conclusion: This systematic review shows weak evidence to support the effectiveness of patient prescriber agreements in the reduction and mitigation of opioid misuse and abuse. Further research is needed to determine if these agreements are beneficial as an opioid management strategy.

Differential adoption of opioid agonist treatments in detoxification and outpatient settings

BACKGROUND

Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a significant public health problem for which a substantial amount of treatment exists. The degree to which methadone and buprenorphine are administered in different treatment modalities is not clear but critical to understanding treatment success rates and service development strategies.

METHODS

Data from the national Treatment Episode Dataset for Admissions and Discharges (TEDS-A [N = 4,070,264] and TEDS-D [832,731], respectively) were used to determine the likelihood patients initiating detoxification and outpatient OUD treatment between 2006 and 2015 were expected to receive opioid agonist treatment. Joinpoint regression evaluated significant trends and a generalized linear model with logit link function identified characteristics associated with receiving an agonist during detoxification. TEDS-D informed the percent of patients leaving detoxification against medical advice who did/did not receive an opioid agonist.

RESULTS

Though agonist use in outpatient settings increased by 60% during 2012-2015, agonist use in detoxification was lower than outpatient treatment, decreased significantly by 26% from 2009 to 2015, and never exceeded 16% of detoxification admissions during 2006-2015. In 2015, persons who were under 25, homeless, had co-occurring psychiatric problems, utilized Medicare, Medicaid, or had no insurance, and had no prior OUD treatment or were high treatment utilizers were the least likely to receive an agonist during detoxification.

CONCLUSIONS

Efforts to expand opioid agonist access has been successful for outpatient but not detoxification settings. Improving detoxification outcomes is a potentially high impact way for the US to expand efficacious OUD treatment access in the US.