Opioid Prescribing Policies Research Articles

How do restrictions on opioid prescribing, harm reduction, and treatment coverage policies relate to opioid overdose deaths in the United States in 2013-2020? An application of a new state opioid policy scale.

Identifying the most effective state laws and provisions to reduce opioid overdose deaths remains critical. Using expert ratings of opioid laws, we developed annual state scores for three domains: opioid prescribing restrictions, harm reduction, and Medicaid treatment coverage. We modeled associations of state opioid policy domain scores with opioid-involved overdose death counts in 3133 counties, and among racial/ethnic subgroups in 1485 counties (2013-2020). We modeled a second set of domain scores based solely on experts' highest 20 ranked provisions to compare with the all-provisions model. From 2013 to 2020, moving from non- to full enactment of harm reduction domain laws (i.e., 0 to 1 in domain score) was associated with reduced county-level relative risk (RR) of opioid overdose death in the subsequent year (adjusted RR = 0.84, 95 % credible interval (CrI): 0.77, 0.92). Moving from non- to full enactment of opioid prescribing restrictions and Medicaid treatment coverage domains was associated with higher overdose in 2013-2016 (aRR 1.69 (1.35, 2.11) and aRR 1.20 (1.11, 1.29) respectively); both shifted to the null in 2017-2020. Effect sizes and direction were similar across racial/ethnic groups. Results for experts' highest 20 ranked provisions did not differ from the all-provision model. More robust state harm reduction policy scores were associated with reduced overdose risk, adjusting for other policy domains. Harmful associations with opioid prescribing restrictions in 2013-2016 may reflect early unintended consequences of these laws. Medicaid coverage domain findings did not align with experts' perceptions, though data limitations precluded inclusion of several highly ranked Medicaid policies.

Trends in Opioid Prescriptions to Opioid-Naïve Patients by Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons in Massachusetts 2012-2022.

Many oral and maxillofacial surgery patients are young, healthy adults who are opioid-naïve. Over-prescribing opioids increases the risk of subsequent misuse and diversion. The purpose of this study was to measure and compare opioid prescriptions to opioid naïve and nonnaïve patients by oral and maxillofacial surgeons in Massachusetts from 2012 to2022. This retrospective cohort study used the Massachusetts Prescription Monitoring Program database to identify Schedule II and III opioid prescriptions by providers with specialty of "oral and maxillofacial surgery" from 2012 to2022. The predictor variable is opioid exposure coded as opioid naïve (yes/no). Opioid-naïve status was defined as not having filled an opioid prescription in the prior 12months. The main outcome variable was the quantity of opioid prescribed by oral and maxillofacial surgeons measured using morphine milligram equivalent (MME) per prescription. The secondary outcome was days' supply prescribed. Covariates of the study included patient age and sex. Descriptive statistics and weighted linear regressions were used to analyze differences in MME per prescription and days's supply per prescription to opioid-naïve and nonnaive patients each year and throughout the study period. P<.05 was considered statistically significant. The data included a total of 866,539 prescriptions to 679,616 opioid-naïve patients and 186,923 nonnaïve patients from 2012 to 2022. Compared to nonnaïve patients, the opioid-naïve cohort had a slightly higher proportion of females (P≤.01 except for 2020) and were significantly younger (35.9 vs 47.6yrs, P≤.01 for all years). For every study year, there was no statistically significant difference in mean MME per prescription or days' supply per prescription between opioid-naïve and nonnaïve patients (P>.05 in all years for both variables). MME per prescription (β=-7.22, 95% CI: -7.65, -6.80; R2=0.79) and days' supply per prescription (β=-0.11, 95% CI: -0.11, -0.10; R2=0.78) decreased at a similar rate throughout the study period for both opioid-naïve and nonnaïve patients. Oral and maxillofacial surgeons in Massachusetts predominantly prescribed opioids to opioid-naïve patients. The quantity and duration of initial prescriptions to opioid-naïve and nonnaïve patients were similar, yet both steadily decreasing, throughout the study period. These trends are encouraging in the context of recent responsible opioid prescribing policy interventions in Massachusetts.

The role of prescription opioid and cannabis supply policies on opioid overdose deaths.

Mandatory prescription drug monitoring programs and cannabis legalization have been hypothesized to reduce overdose deaths. We examined associations between prescription monitoring programs with access mandates ("must-query PDMPs"), legalization of medical and recreational cannabis supply, and opioid overdose deaths in United States counties in 2013-2020. Using data on overdose deaths from the National Vital Statistics System, we fit Bayesian spatiotemporal models to estimate risk differences and 95% credible intervals (CrI) in county-level opioid overdose deaths associated with enactment of these state policies. Must-query PDMPs were independently associated with on average 0.8 (95% CrI: 0.5, 1.0) additional opioid-involved overdose deaths per 100,000 person-years. Legal cannabis supply was not independently associated with opioid overdose deaths in this time period. Must-query PDMPs enacted in the presence of legal (medical or recreational) cannabis supply were associated with 0.7 (95% CrI: 0.4, 0.9) more opioid-involved deaths, relative to must-query PDMPs without any legal cannabis supply. In a time when overdoses are driven mostly by non-prescribed opioids, stricter opioid prescribing policies and more expansive cannabis legalization were not associated with reduced overdose death rates.

How Should the Use of Opioids Be Regulated to Motivate Better Clinical Practice?

This article describes historical and political reasons for-and devastating consequences of-US opioid prescribing policy since the 1990s, which has restricted opioid prescribing for pain less than for treating opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment. This article considers merits and drawbacks of a new diagnostic category and proposes a regulatory and clinical framework for prescribing long-term opioid therapy for pain and for prescribing opioids to treat OUD.

Impact of state opioid laws on prescribing in trauma patients

BackgroundExcessive opioid prescribing has resulted in opioid diversion and misuse. In July 2018, Michigan’s Public Act 251 established a state-wide policy limiting opioid prescriptions for acute pain to a 7-day supply. Traumatic injury increases the risk for new persistent opioid use, yet the impact of prescribing policy in trauma patients remains unknown. To determine the relationship between policy enactment and prescribing in trauma patients, we compared oral morphine equivalents prescribed at discharge before and after implementation of Public Act 251. MethodsIn this cross-sectional study, adult patients who received any oral opioids at discharge from a Level 1 trauma center between January 1, 2016, and June 30, 2021, were identified. The exposure was patients admitted starting July 1, 2018. Inpatient oral morphine equivalents per day 48 hours before discharge and discharge prescription oral morphine equivalents per day were calculated. Student’s t test and an interrupted time series analysis were performed to compare mean oral morphine equivalents per day pre- and post-policy. Multivariable risk adjustment accounted for patient/injury factors and inpatient oral morphine equivalent use. ResultsA total of 3,748 patients were included in the study (pre-policy n = 1,685; post-policy n = 2,063). Implementation of the prescribing policy was associated with a significant decrease in mean discharge oral morphine equivalents per day (34.8 ± 49.5 vs 16.7 ± 32.3, P < .001). After risk adjustment, post-policy discharge prescriptions differed by −19.2 oral morphine equivalents per day (95% CI −21.7 to −16.8, P < .001). The proportion of patients obtaining a refill prescription 30 days post-discharge did not increase after implementation (0.38 ± 0.48 vs 0.37 ± 0.48, P = .7). ConclusionDischarge prescription amounts for opioids in trauma patients decreased by approximately one-half after the implementation of opioid prescribing policies, and there was no compensatory increase in subsequent refill prescriptions. Future work is needed to evaluate the effect of these policies on the adequacy of pain management and functional recovery after injury.

An Appraisal of Opioid Treatment Agreements for the Podiatric Physician.

Opioid treatment agreements are written agreements between physicians and patients that represent strategies enumerating the risks associated with opioid medications. These opioid treatment agreements set expectations and obligations, as well as identify responsibilities for both patient and prescriber for opioid therapy. Some critics assert that these agreements are cumbersome and degrade the patient once they enter into these agreements. A systemic literature search and review using the Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) tool was used to find citations describing opioid treatment agreements and their use. Then eligible and appropriate citations were dissected and analyzed. Using the available federal and state opioid prescribing policies, best practice guidelines as well as positive aspects of reviewed literature citations and avoiding bias, degrading, or macroaggression language, a non-cumbersome opioid treatment agreement specific to podiatric medicine was created. A balance argument for the use of opioid treatment agreements to avoid opioid use disorder that is grounded in clinical literature and commentaries are presented. A one-page sensible opioid treatment agreement specific to podiatric medicine, which is similar to more complex cumbersome ones that are found in the literature, and that may be used as part of any podiatric procedural or surgical inform consent, was created and is presented for review. The perception of defending opioid treatment agreements as documents of disclosure to assist patients in their autonomy was offered. Building on the systemic review findings and concept of using elements of disclosure, a model for an analgesic treatment as a one-page informational document to enhance podiatric physicians to create a specific individual analgesic treatment agreement mirroring the scope of podiatric practices that can be incorporated into procedural and surgical inform consent documents was offered.

Intended and unintended consequences: Changes in opioid prescribing practices for postsurgical, acute, and chronic pain indications following two policies in North Carolina, 2012–2018 – Controlled and single-series interrupted time series analyses

BackgroundThe potential misapplication of current opioid prescribing policies remains understudied and may have substantial adverse implications for patient safety. MethodsWe used autoregressive integrated moving average models to assess level and trend changes in monthly 1) prescribing rates, 2) days’ supply, and 3) daily morphine milligram equivalents (MME) of incident opioid prescriptions relative to 1) a state medical board initiative to reduce high-dose and -volume opioid prescribing and 2) legislation to limit initial opioid prescriptions for acute and postsurgical pain. We examined outcomes by pain indication overall and by cancer history, using prescribing patterns for benzodiazepines to control for temporal trends. We used large private health insurance claims data to include North Carolina residents, aged 18–64, insured at any point between January 2012 and August 2018. ResultsAfter the medical board initiative, prescribing patterns for chronic pain patients did not change; conversely, acute and postsurgical pain patients experienced immediate declines in daily MME. Post-legislation prescription rates did not decline for those with acute, postsurgical, and non-cancer pain, but instead declined among cancer patients with chronic pain. Chronic pain patients experienced the largest days’ supply declines post-legislation, instead of acute and postsurgical pain patients. ConclusionsWe found mixed evidence on the potential impact of two opioid prescribing policies, with some observed declines in a group not intended to be impacted by the policy. This study provides evidence of the need for clearer opioid prescribing policies to ensure impacts on intended populations and avoid unintended consequences.

The characteristics of opioid use in patients with proximal humerus fractures.

Orthopaedic surgeons prescribe more opioid narcotics than any other surgical specialty. Proximal humerus fractures (PHF) often occur in the high-risk elderly population. The opioid epidemic has led to public policy aimed at reductions in opioid prescription. This study aimed to evaluate the impact that new legislation has had on opioid prescription patterns in patients who sustained proximal humerus fractures. A retrospective review of all patients who sustained PHF at a single academic institution from 1/1/2015-12/31/2019 was performed. A total of 762 proximal humerus fractures were identified and final analysis included 383 patients. Collected data included basic demographics and opioid prescriptions obtained through review of the electronic medical record. The North Carolina Strengthen Opioid Misuse Prevention act legislation that went into effect on July 1, 2017. There was no difference in the number of pre- or postoperative opioid prescriptions provided with the new legislation. Our data showed a significant reduction in MeQs prescribed preoperatively pre-STOP act (188.1 MeQs) and post-STOP act (99.4 MeQs). There was also a significant difference in the amount of postoperative narcotics prescribed in the pre-STOP (972.6 MeQs) and post-STOP act (508.6 MeQs) groups (p < 0.01). With the enactment of the STOP act in North Carolina, we have seen a significant reduction in the amount of narcotic prescribed after sustaining a proximal humerus fracture preoperatively and postoperatively. This data demonstrates the impact that implementation of state-wide regulatory changes in opioid prescribing policy has had for a common orthopedic condition.

U.S. state policies on opioid prescribing during the peak of the prescription opioid crisis: Associations with opioid overdose mortality.

In response to the opioid overdose crisis in the United States, many states implemented policies to guide opioid prescribing, but their impact on overdose mortality (prescription and non-prescription) remains poorly understood. We examined the impact of U.S. state opioid-prescribing policies on opioid overdose mortality following implementation. We calculated opioid overdose mortality rates from 1999-2016 by U.S. state using the CDC WONDER database, overall and separately for overdose deaths from prescription and non-prescription opioids. For each state, policies active on 1/1/2014 were reviewed for the presence and strength of six provisions recommending judicious opioid prescribing practices; "strong" provisions used the words "should," "shall," or "must". Interrupted time series (ITS) tested the association of each strong provision with overdose mortality, overall and separately for prescription and non-prescription opioids, in the two years following implementation. Sensitivity analyses compared between states, used time-lagged analyses, and excluded synthetic opioids from non-prescription opioid deaths. All six provisions had consistent direction of effect in ITS and sensitivity analyses. Strong provisions for prescriber training and limits on opioid dose reduced the slope of overall and prescription opioid overdose mortality in both ITS and sensitivity analyses. Reduced non-prescription opioid overdose mortality was only associated with strong provision for prescriber training. Some provisions had a negative impact. In ITS, strong provision for prescriber response to misuse increased the slope of non-prescription opioid overdose mortality. Strong provision for mandatory prescription drug monitoring program use had no relationship with overdose mortality in ITS and was associated with increased overall, prescription and non-prescription opioid overdose mortality in between-state sensitivity analysis. Opioid prescribing policies in U.S. states at the peak of the prescription opioid epidemic had modest mortality benefit, and did not reduce non-prescription opioid overdose mortality. A strong provision for prescriber training was the only provision associated with reduced prescription and non-prescription opioid overdose mortality. These findings can inform future efforts addressing prescription drug epidemics.

Effects of Ohio Opioid Prescribing Policy on Postsurgical Prescriptions Following Sports Procedures

Background: Prescribed opioid medication after orthopedic sports surgery has been shown to exceed patient requirements. In 2017, as a response to the opioid epidemic, Ohio passed Opioid Prescribing Guidelines (OPG) limiting narcotic prescriptions for acute pain. This study sought to evaluate the effects of the OPG on prescribing behavior of orthopedists following knee arthroscopy (KA), shoulder arthroscopy (SA), and anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). Methods: An institutional database was queried to calculate morphine equivalent dose (MED) prescribed at discharge, acute follow-up (<90 >days), and chronic follow-up (>90 days) and compare MED pre- and post-OPG. Cases were identified over a 2-year period starting 1 year prior to OPG implementation. Individual surgeon data were tracked to control for inter-surgeon variability. Results: A total of 1663 patients were included in the analysis. Demographic variables were similar pre- and post-OPG for each procedure group. With all surgeons included, average discharge MED decreased significantly for all procedures from pre- to post-OPG. Surgeons qualified for individual analysis if they had at least 10 surgeries pre- and post-OPG. Of qualifying providers, 80% of KA, 25% of SA, and 0% of ACLR surgeons reduced discharge MED prescribed post-OPG. MED prescribed during follow-up was largely unaffected by implementation of the OPG. Conclusion: Average discharge morphine equivalent dose (MED) prescribed after SA, KA, and ACLR decreased following the implementation of the OPG. The MED reduction effect of the OPG was the greatest in magnitude after SA, and SA was the only surgery that showed MED reductions that persisted during acute follow up. Opioid prescriptions beyond 90 days postoperatively were unchanged by the OPG for all surgeries. Policy that restricts postoperative opioid prescriptions can be an effective, but incomplete method to address the opioid crisis.

Evaluating opioid analgesic prescribing limits: A narrative review.

In response to the opioid crisis, opioid analgesic guidelines and prescribing limits have proliferated. The purpose of this narrative review is to examine evidence from studies evaluating the patient or public health impact of federal and state opioid analgesic prescribing guidelines and laws, describe gaps and challenges in current research, and highlight opportunities for improving future research. We focused on evidence from a literature review covering 2013 through 2019. We identified 30 studies evaluating opioid analgesic thresholds based on federal policies and guidelines, state laws, and Medicaid state plans that attempt to influence the course of patient care at or when the limit is exceeded (e.g., prior authorization). Most studies evaluated changes in prescribing or dispensing patterns of opioid analgesics, largely finding decreases in prescribing after policy enactment. Fewer studies evaluated patient or public health outcomes beyond changes in prescribing and dispensing patterns; results were infrequently stratified by potentially important sociodemographic and clinical factors. No studies assessed the potential for adverse patient outcomes for which we have emerging evidence of harms. We describe knowledge gaps and propose opportunities for future research to sufficiently assess the potential impact and unintended consequences of opioid analgesic prescribing laws, regulations, guidelines, and policies.

Impacts of an Opioid Safety Initiative onUS Veterans Undergoing Cancer Treatment.

There is limited research on how the opioid epidemic and consequent risk reduction policies have affected pain management among cancer patients. The purpose of this study was to analyze how the Opioid Safety Initiative (OSI) implemented at the Veterans Health Administration affected opioid prescribing patterns and opioid-related toxicity. We performed an interrupted time series analysis of 42 064 opioid-naïve patients treated at the Veterans Health Administration for prostate, lung, breast, and colorectal cancer from 2011 to 2016. Segmented regression was used to evaluate the impact of the OSI on the incidence of any new opioid prescriptions, high-risk prescriptions, persistent use, and pain-related emergency department (ED) visits. We compared the cumulative incidence of adverse opioid events including an opioid-related admission or diagnosis of misuse before and after the OSI. All statistical tests were 2-sided. The incidence of new opioid prescriptions was 26.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 25.0% to 28.4%) in 2011 and increased to 50.6% (95% CI = 48.3% to 53.0%) by 2013 before OSI implementation (monthly rate of change: +3.3%, 95% CI = 1.3% to 4.2%, P < .001). After the OSI, there was a decrease in the monthly rate of change for new prescriptions (-3.4%, 95% CI = -3.9 to -2.9%, P < .001). The implementation of the OSI was associated with a decrease in the monthly rate of change of concomitant benzodiazepines and opioid prescriptions (-2.5%, 95% CI = -3.2% to -1.8%, P < .001), no statistically significant change in high-dose opioids (-1.2%, 95% CI = -3.2% to 0.9%, P = .26), a decrease in persistent opioid use (-5.7%, 95% CI = -6.8% to -4.7%, P < .001), and an increase in pain-related ED visits (+3.0%, 95% CI = 1.0% to 5.0%, P = .003). The OSI was associated with a decreased incidence of opioid-related admissions (3-year cumulative incidence: 0.9% [95% CI = 0.7% to 1.0%] vs 0.5% [95% CI = 0.4% to 0.6%], P < .001) and no statistically significant change in the incidence of opioid misuse (3-year cumulative incidence: 1.2% [95% CI = 1.0% to 1.3%] vs 1.2% [95% CI = 1.1% to 1.4%], P = .77). The OSI was associated with a relative decline in the rate of new, persistent, and certain high-risk opioid prescribing as well as a slight increase in the rate of pain-related ED visits. Further research on patient-centered outcomes is required to optimize opioid prescribing policies for patients with cancer.

An Interprofessional Approach to Chronic Pain Management and Education.

The opioid epidemic highlights the importance of evidence-based practices in the management of chronic pain and the need for improved resident education focused on chronic pain treatment and controlled substance use. We present the development, implementation, and outcomes of a novel, long-standing interprofessional safe prescribing committee (SPC) and resulting policy, protocol, and longitudinal curriculum to address patient care and educational gaps in chronic pain management for residents in training. The SPC developed and implemented an opioid prescribing policy, protocol, and longitudinal curriculum in a single, community-based residency program. We conducted a postcurriculum survey for resident graduates to assess impact of knowledge gained. We conducted a retrospective chart review for patients on chronic opioid therapy to assess change in morphine equivalent dosing (MED) and pain scores pre- and postintervention. A postcurriculum survey was completed by 20/26 (77%) graduates; 18/20 (90%) felt well-equipped to manage chronic pain based on their residency training experience. We completed a retrospective chart review on 57 patients. We found a significant decrease in MED (-20.34 [SE 5.12], P&lt;.0001) at intervention visit with MED reductions maintained through the postintervention period (-9.43 per year additional decrease [SE 5.25], P=.073). We observed improvement in postintervention pain scores (P=.017). Our study illustrates the effectiveness of an interprofessional committee in lowering prescribed opioid doses and enhancing chronic pain education in a community-based residency setting.

How opioid prescribing policies influence primary care clinicians' treatment decisions and conversations with patients with chronic pain.

The 2016 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guideline for prescribing opioids for chronic pain aimed to assist primary care clinicians in safely and effectively prescribing opioids for chronic noncancer pain. Individual states, payers, and health systems issued similar policies imposing various regulations around opioid prescribing for patients with chronic pain. Experts argued that healthcare organizations and clinicians may be misapplying the federal guideline and subsequent opioid prescribing policies, leading to an inadequate pain management. The objective of this study was to understand how primary care clinicians involve opioid prescribing policies in their treatment decisions and in their conversations with patients with chronic pain. We conducted a secondary qualitative analysis of data from 64 unique primary care visits and 87 post-visit interviews across 20 clinicians from three healthcare systems in the Midwestern United States. Using a multistep process and thematic analysis, we systematically analyzed data excerpts addressing opioid prescribing policies. Opioid prescribing policies influenced clinicians' treatment decisions to not initiate opioids, prescribe fewer opioids overall (theme #1), and begin tapering and discontinuation of opioids (theme #2) for most patients with chronic pain. Clinical precautions, described in the opioid prescribing policies to monitor use, were directly invoked during visits for patients with chronic pain (theme #3). Opioid prescribing policies have multidimensional influence on clinician treatment decisions for patients with chronic pain. Our findings may inform future studies to explore mechanisms for aligning pressures around opioid prescribing, stemming from various opioid prescribing policies, with the need to deliver individualized pain care.

Factors Associated with Pain Treatment Satisfaction Among Patients with Chronic Non-Cancer Pain and Substance Use.

A better understanding of pain treatment satisfaction in patients with chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) and substance use is needed, especially as opioid prescribing policies are changing. We sought to identify factors associated with pain treatment satisfaction in individuals with CNCP on recent opioid therapy and prior or active substance use. An exploratory cross-sectional analysis using baseline data from a cohort study of 300 adults with CNCP receiving >20 morphine milligram equivalents of opioids for ≥3 of the preceding 12 months and prior or active substance use. Participants completed interviews, clinical assessments, urine drug screening, and medical chart review. Participants were predominantly middle-aged (mean age 57.5 years), Black (44%), and cisgender men (60%). One-third (33%) had high, 28% moderate, and 39% low pain treatment satisfaction. Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), tobacco use, past-year opioid discontinuation, and higher average pain scores were associated with lower satisfaction. HIV and prescription cannabis use were associated with higher satisfaction. The relationship between PTSD and tobacco use with lower satisfaction should be explored to augment pain outcomes. Higher satisfaction among individuals with HIV and prescription cannabis use presents potential research areas to guide CNCP management and reduce reliance on opioid therapies.

Prescription opioid policies and associations with opioid overdose and related adverse effects.

United States (US) policies to mitigate the opioid epidemic focus on reducing access to prescription opioids to prevent overdoses. We examined the impact of state policies in Vermont (July 2017) and Maine (July 2016) on opioid overdoses and opioid-related adverse effects. Study population included patients 15 years and older in all-payer claims of Vermont (N=597,683; Jan.2016-Dec.2018) and Maine (N=1,370,960; Oct.2015-Dec.2017). We used interrupted time series analyses to assess the impact of opioid prescribing policies on monthly opioid overdose rate and opioid-related adverse effects rate. We used the International Classification of Disease-10-CM to identify overdoses (T40.0×1-T40.4×4, T40.601-T40.604, T40.691-T40.694) and adverse effects (T40.0×5, T40.2×5-T40.4×5, T40.605, T40.695). Immediately after the policy, the level of Vermont's opioid overdose rate increased by 34% (95% confidence interval, CI: 1.09, 1.65) while the level of opioid-related adverse effects rate decreased by 29% (95% CI: 0.58, 0.87). In Maine, there was no level change in opioid overdose rate, but the slope of the adverse effects rate after the policy decreased by 3.5% (95% CI: 0.94, 0.99). These results varied within age and rurality subgroups in both states. While the decrease in rate of adverse effects following the policy changes is promising, the increase in Vermont's opioid overdose rate may suggest there is an association between policy implementation and short-term risk to public health.

Evaluating the Effects of Opioid Prescribing Policies on Patient Outcomes in a Safety-net Primary Care Clinic

BackgroundAfter decades of liberal opioid prescribing, multiple efforts have been made to reduce reliance upon opioids in clinical care. Little is known about the effects of opioid prescribing policies on outcomes beyond opioid prescribing.ObjectiveTo evaluate the combined effects of multiple opioid prescribing policies implemented in a safety-net primary care clinic in San Francisco, CA, in 2013–2014.DesignRetrospective cohort study and conditional difference-in-differences analysis of nonrandomized clinic-level policies.Patients273 patients prescribed opioids for chronic non-cancer pain in 2013 at either the treated (n=151) or control clinic (n=122) recruited and interviewed in 2017–2018.InterventionsPolicies establishing standard protocols for dispensing opioid refills and conducting urine toxicology testing, and a new committee facilitating opioid treatment decisions for complex patient cases.Main MeasuresOpioid prescription (active prescription, mean dose in morphine milligram equivalents [MME]) from electronic medical charts, and heroin and opioid analgesics not prescribed to the patient (any use, use frequency) from a retrospective interview.Key ResultsThe interventions were associated with a reduction in mean prescribed opioid dose in the first three post-policy years (year 1 conditional difference-in-differences estimate: −52.0 MME [95% confidence interval: −109.9, −10.6]; year 2: −106.2 MME [−195.0, −34.6]; year 3: −98.6 MME [−198.7, −23.9]; year 4: −72.6 MME [−160.4, 3.6]). Estimates suggest a possible positive association between the interventions and non-prescribed opioid analgesic use (year 3: 5.2 absolute percentage points [−0.1, 11.2]) and use frequency (year 3: 0.21 ordinal frequency scale points [0.00, 0.47]) in the third post-policy year.ConclusionsClinic-level opioid prescribing policies were associated with reduced dose, although the control clinic achieved similar reductions by the fourth post-policy year, and the policies may have been associated with increased non-prescribed opioid analgesic use. Clinicians should balance the urgency to reduce opioid prescribing with potential harms from rapid change.

Impact of the VA opioid safety initiative on pain management for cancer patients.

102 Background: Limited research exists on how risk reduction policies in response to the opioid epidemic have impacted pain management among cancer patients. This study investigated the impact of the Veteran’s Health Administration (VHA) Opioid Safety Initiative (OSI) on opioid prescribing patterns and opioid-related toxicity among patients undergoing definitive cancer treatment. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 42,064 opioid-naïve patients receiving definitive local therapy for prostate, lung, breast, and colorectal cancer at the VHA from 2011-2016. Interrupted time series analysis with segmented regression was used to evaluate the impact of the OSI, which launched October 2013. The primary outcome was the incidence of new opioid prescriptions with diagnosis or treatment. Secondary outcomes included rates of high daily dose opioid (≥ 100 morphine milligram equivalent) and concomitant benzodiazepine prescriptions. Additional long-term outcomes included persistent opioid use, opioid abuse diagnoses, pain-related ED visits, and opioid-related admissions. Results: Prior to OSI implementation, the incidence of opioid prescriptions among new cancer patients increased from 26.7% (95% CI 25.0 – 28.4) in the first quarter (Q1) of 2011 to 50.6% (95% CI 48.3 – 53.0) in Q3 2013. There was a monthly increase in opioid prescription rate pre-OSI followed by a monthly decrease post-OSI (Table). High-dose opioid prescriptions were rare, and the monthly rate was stable before and after the OSI. Monthly incidence of concomitant benzodiazepine prescriptions was stable pre-OSI and decreased post-OSI. Persistent opioid use increased pre-OSI and decreased post-OSI. Pain-related ED visits had an incidence of 0.8% (95% CI 0.4 – 1.0) in Q1 2011, 0.3% (95% CI 0.1 – 0.6) in Q3 2013, and 1.8% (95% CI 0.9 – 2.7) in Q4 2016, with an increasing monthly rate after the OSI. At three years, the cumulative incidence of opioid abuse was 1.2% for both the pre- and post-OSI groups but opioid-related admissions were greater in the pre-OSI cohort than the post-OSI cohort (0.9% vs. 0.5%, p &lt; 0.001). Conclusions: The OSI was associated with a decrease in new, persistent, and certain high-risk opioid prescribing as well as an increase in pain-related ED visits. Further research on patient-centered outcomes is required to optimize opioid prescribing policies for patients with cancer.[Table: see text]

Interprofessional Education on Pain and Opioid Use Meets Team-based Learning Needs

An urgent need exists to improve care for patients who seek opioids for pain relief. Targeting education towards a diverse interprofessional health care team is one approach to ensure all team members communicate effectively and understand evidence-based opioid prescribing practices and policies. The purpose of this session is to (1) share outcomes from an interprofessional education (IPE) program developed for health science students and rural clinics to address stigmatization and gaps in pain and opioid use education; and (2) demonstrate how nurses can lead an interactive IPE program for all members of the health care team.

Leftover Opioid Analgesics and Disposal Following Ambulatory Pediatric Surgeries in the Context of a Restrictive Opioid-Prescribing Policy.

Opioid analgesics are commonly prescribed for postoperative analgesia following pediatric surgery and often result in leftover opioid analgesics in the home. To reduce the volume of leftover opioids and overall community opioid burden, the State of Tennessee enacted a policy to reduce initial opioid prescribing to a 3-day supply for most acute pain incidents. We aimed to evaluate the extent of leftover opioid analgesics following pediatric ambulatory surgeries in the context of a state-mandated restrictive opioid-prescribing policy. We also aimed to evaluate opioid disposal rates, methods of disposal, and reasons for nondisposal. Study personnel contacted the parents of 300 pediatric patients discharged with an opioid prescription following pediatric ambulatory surgery. Parents completed a retrospective telephone survey regarding opioid use and disposal. Data from the survey were combined with data from the medical record to evaluate proportion of opioid doses prescribed that were left over. The final analyzable sample of 185 patients (62% response rate) were prescribed a median of 12 opioid doses (interquartile range [IQR], 12-18), consumed 2 opioid doses (IQR, 0-4), and had 10 opioid doses left over (IQR, 7-13). Over 90% (n = 170 of 185) of parents reported they had leftover opioid analgesics, with 83% of prescribed doses left over. A significant proportion (29%, n = 54 of 185) of parents administered no prescribed opioids after surgery. Less than half (42%, n = 71 of 170) of parents disposed of the leftover opioid medication, most commonly by flushing down the toilet, pouring down the sink, or throwing in the garbage. Parents retaining leftover opioids (53%, n = 90 of 170) were most likely to keep them in an unlocked location (68%, n = 61 of 90). Parents described forgetfulness and worry that their child will experience pain in the future as primary reasons for not disposing of the leftover opioid medication. Despite Tennessee's policy aimed at reducing leftover opioids, a significant proportion of prescribed opioids were left over following pediatric ambulatory surgeries. A majority of parents did not engage in safe opioid disposal practices. Given the safety risks related to leftover opioids in the home, further interventions to improve disposal rates and tailor opioid prescribing are warranted after pediatric surgery.