Patients Receiving Prescription Opioids Research Articles

State Mandates On Naloxone Coprescribing Associated With Short-Term Increase In Naloxone Codispensing.

In the midst of the opioid crisis in the US, efforts to mitigate overdose risks have become paramount, leading some states to introduce mandates for coprescribing the life-saving overdose reversal drug naloxone. These mandates were designed to specifically address people receiving opioid analgesics who had an elevated risk for overdose. This included people receiving high opioid dosages, those concurrently using benzodiazepines, or those with a history of substance use disorder or overdose. Using a nationally representative, multipayer cohort of patients receiving prescription opioids, we investigated how naloxone codispensing rates changed at the state level from 2016 to 2021 among patients with an elevated risk for overdose. Then we used controlled interrupted time series analyses to assess mandates' longitudinal impact on naloxone codispensing in ten states that implemented mandates. We observed an immediate and significant increase in the naloxone codispensing rates in eight states after the implementation of mandates. Nevertheless, in five of these states, the codispensing rates exhibited a subsequent downward trend after the initial increase. State mandates show potential for improving naloxone codispensing; however, mandates alone might not be adequate for sustained change. Further research is needed to identify strategies complementing and enhancing the impact of mandates in combating the overdose crisis.

Risk of Overdose Associated With Co-prescription of Antipsychotics and Opioids: A Population-Based Cohort Study.

The US FDA issued a black-box warning against co-prescription of antipsychotic (AP) agents and opioids due to the risk of respiratory depression, but evidence on the comparative safety of sedating vs nonsedating APs is lacking. We classified APs as sedating (eg, quetiapine, olanzapine, and chlorpromazine) and nonsedating (eg, aripiprazole, haloperidol, and risperidone) based on their affinity to the histamine-1 neuroreceptor (Ki < or ≥20, respectively) and sought to compare the rate of overdose between patients using sedating vs nonsedating APs plus opioids. We constructed a population-based cohort nested in the IBM MarketScan database (2004-2017). Patients with concomitant use of sedating APs and prescription opioids ("exposed") were 1:1 matched to patients with concomitant use of nonsedating APs and prescription opioids ("referent") based on the propensity score (PS). The primary outcome was any hospitalization or emergency department visit due to an overdose within 30 days. The final cohort comprised 62 604 exposed and an equal number of PS-matched reference patients. Characteristics of matched exposed and reference patients were similar. There were 178 overdose events among the exposed (35.3 events per 1000 person-years [PY]) vs 133 among the reference group (26.4 events per 1000 PY), for an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.34 (95% CI: 1.07-1.68). This finding was consistent across sensitivity and subgroup analyses. Among patients receiving prescription opioids, concomitant use of sedating APs was associated with an increased risk of overdose compared with nonsedating APs. Caution is required when co-prescribing opioids and APs. If co-prescription is needed, choosing a nonsedating agent should be preferred whenever possible given the clinical context.

The Risk of Overdose With Concomitant Use of Z-Drugs and Prescription Opioids: A Population-Based Cohort Study.

The Z-drugs (zolpidem, zopiclone, zaleplon) are widely used to treat insomnia in patients receiving prescription opioids, and the risk of overdose resulting from this coprescription has not been explored. The authors compared the rates of overdose among patients using opioids plus Z-drugs and patients using opioids alone. All individuals 15 to 85 years of age receiving prescription opioids, regardless of underlying indication and without evidence of cancer, were identified in the IBM MarketScan database (2004-2017). Patients with concomitant exposure to Z-drugs were matched 1:1 to patients with exposure to prescription opioids alone based on opioid prescribed, morphine equivalents, number of days' supply, and hospitalization within the past 30 days. The primary outcome was any hospitalization or emergency department visit due to an overdose within 30 days, using an intention-to-treat approach. Fine stratification on the propensity score was used to control for confounding. A total of 510,529 exposed patients and an equal number of matched reference patients were analyzed. There were 217 overdose events among the exposed patients (52.5 events per 10,000 person-years) and 57 events among the reference patients (14.4 events per 10,000 person-years), corresponding to an unadjusted hazard ratio of 3.67 (95% CI=2.75, 4.90). Using fine stratification on the propensity score (c-statistic: 0.66), the adjusted hazard ratio was 2.29 (95% CI=1.79, 2.91). Results were consistent across sensitivity analyses. Among patients receiving prescription opioids, after controlling for all confounding factors, concomitant treatment with Z-drugs was associated with a substantial relative increase in the risk of overdose. The potential implications are significant given the large number of opioid-treated patients receiving Z-drugs.

&lt;p&gt;Safe Opioid Storage and Disposal: A Survey of Patient Beliefs and Practices&lt;/p&gt;

ObjectiveTo evaluate knowledge, practices, and beliefs of US patients receiving prescription opioids regarding opioid storage, disposal, and diversion.DesignInternet-based, cross-sectional survey conducted between September and October 2018. Fisher’s exact tests and Kendall’s Tau-c were used to assess associations with storage and disposal outcomes.ParticipantsPatients aged ≥18 years with acute (n=250) or chronic noncancer (n=250) pain were prescribed an oral opioid within 90 days of the survey.ResultsMean (SD) patient age was 48 (14.7) years, 57.2% were female, 82.6% lived with ≥1 person in the home, and 28.0% had remaining/unused pills. One-third of all patients received safe opioid storage (35.2%) and/or disposal (31.4%) counseling from a healthcare provider, while 50.0% received neither storage nor disposal information. Only 27.4% of all patients stored their opioids in a locked location, and 17.9% of those with remaining/unused pills disposed of their medication. Patients who received any opioid counseling were more likely to keep their medication in a locked location compared with those who did not (42.4% vs 12.4%, respectively; P<0.0001), as were those who perceived any risk of opioid diversion in the home compared with those who perceived no risk or were unsure (53.7% vs 24.2%, respectively; P<0.0001). Disposal rates did not differ based on counseling received (20.8% counseled vs 16.1% not counseled; P=0.5011) or perceived diversion risk (27.8% perceived any risk vs 16.4% perceived no risk or unsure; P=0.3166).ConclusionThe proportion of patients receiving prescription opioids who receive safe storage/disposal counseling from a healthcare provider appears suboptimal. Further research is warranted to develop effective ways to improve patient opioid storage/disposal education and practices.

Naloxone Co-prescribing to Patients Receiving Prescription Opioids in the Medicare Part D Program, United States, 2016-2017

Naloxone Co-prescribing to Patients Receiving Prescription Opioids in the Medicare Part D Program, United States, 2016-2017

Access to Primary Care Clinics for Patients With Chronic Pain Receiving Opioids

Opioid-prescribing policies and guidelines aimed at reducing inappropriate opioid prescribing may lead physicians to stop prescribing opioids. Patients may thus encounter difficulties finding primary care practitioners willing to care for them if they take opioids. To assess practitioner willingness to accept and continue prescribing opioids to new patients with pain and whether this willingness differs across payer types. This survey study used a simulated patient call audit method. A brief telephone survey was administered to all clinics followed by a call using a patient script simulating an adult patient with chronic pain who was taking long-term opioids. The patient had Medicaid or private insurance. Calls were made between June 22 and October 30, 2018, to 667 primary care clinics that served a general adult population in Michigan. Clinics that accepted both Medicaid and private insurance, took new patient appointments, and were successfully recontacted for the simulated call were eligible for the study. Prevalence of clinics' acceptance of new patients receiving prescription opioids overall and by clinic characteristics and insurance type. Of the 194 eligible clinics, 94 (48.4%) were randomized according to insurance type to receive calls from research assistants posing as children of patients with Medicaid and 100 (51.5%) to receive calls from those with private insurance. Overall, 79 (40.7%) stated that their practitioners would not prescribe opioids to the simulated patient. Thirty-three clinics (17.0%) requested more information before making a decision. Compared with single-practitioner clinics, clinics with more than 3 practitioners were more likely (odds ratio [OR], 2.99; 95% CI, 1.48-6.04) to accept new patients currently taking opioids. No difference was found in access based on insurance status (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.52-1.64) or whether the clinic offered medications for opioid use disorders (OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.45-2.69). The findings suggest that access to primary care may be reduced for patients taking prescription opioids, which could lead to unintended consequences, such as conversion to illicit substances or reduced management of other medical comorbidities.

Reducing substance abuse in patients receiving prescription opioids for chronic non-cancer pain: a quality improvement and patient safety study in a primary care setting

ABSTRACTBackground: Chronic non-cancer pain is a common cause of primary care physicians’ office visits.Objective: To determine the impact of adopting screening and monitoring measures in primary care settings on the illicit substance use behavior of patients receiving opioid analgesic prescriptions.Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of data on patients who were prescribed opioid analgesics for chronic non-cancer pain between 2014 and 2017 Q1 (i.e., first quarter of 2017). Study participants were patients who sought medical care at our academic primary care clinic practice that is part of an internal medicine residency program. Participants were adults (>18 years) who were considered eligible for opioid analgesics for chronic non-cancer pain.Interventions: (1) Rolling out of the chronic non-cancer pain management policy to clinic staff; (2) pain medication contracts with patients; (3) random urine drug screen (UDS) testing performed on patients during their clinic visits; 4) a didactics curriculum for internal medicine residents to highlight the key elements in utilizing and interpreting UDS results; (5) adding alerts to the electronic medical record that notifies clinic staff of discrepancy between patients’ prescribed medications and UDS findings, as well as for quick identification of patients who had violated a stipulation of the contract; (6) mandatory regular utilization of Michigan State’s online prescription monitoring records; and (7) employment of an on-site behavioral specialist for patients with mental illness or at risk of drug abuse.Main outcomes and measures: The main endpoint was the percentage of illicit drug use detected per year.Results: A total of 8096 UDS samples were collected over the study period. Mean (SD) participant age was 52 (SD 12) and 51% were male. Urine samples which had at least one illicit substance constituted 41% of the samples in 2014 prior to intervention. We found a significant decrease in the percentage of illicit substances after initiation of the intervention to 37% in 2015, 19% in 2016, and 12% in 2017Q1 (p < 0.001).Conclusion: Adopting a system-wide screening and monitoring measures in a primary care setting can significantly reduce the amount of illicit drug use among patients receiving an opioid prescription for non-cancer pain. This has important implications for patient safety and the current opioid epidemic in the USA. Further studies are needed to evaluate similar interventions in other settings such as a pain clinic.

Relationship between high-risk patients receiving prescription opioids and high-volume opioid prescribers.

(1) To characterize the amount of prescription opioids prescribed for high-risk patients by low-volume prescribers; (2) to quantify how high- and low-volume prescribers differ systematically in their prescribing patterns. Cross-sectional study using 2015 longitudinal, all-payer QuintilesIMS pharmacy claims. We conducted an aggregated analysis for the first aim and an individual-level analysis for the second aim. California, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, and Washington, USA. Among 4 046 275 patients, we identified 375 848 concomitant users (filling more than 30-days of concomitant opioids and benzodiazepines), 150 814 chronic users (using 100+ morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) per day for more than 90days), and 3190 patients prescribed opioids by >3 prescribers and filling opioids at >3 pharmacies during any 90-day period. Among 192 126 prescribers, we identified 8023 high-volume prescribers, who comprised the highest fifth percentile of opioid volume during four calendar quarters. (1) MME dose per transaction, (2) days supplied per transaction, (3) total opioid volume per patient and (4) number of prescriptions per patient. We also examined differences in opioid dispensing between high- and low-volume prescribers among patients receiving opioids from both. Low-volume prescribers accounted for 15-29% of opioid volume and 18-56% of opioid prescriptions for high-risk patients, compared with 28-37% and 53-58% for low-risk patients. After accounting for state of residence, comorbid burden, prescriber specialty and care sequence, patients were more likely to receive higher doses (60.9 versus 53.2 MMEs per day, P<0.01), longer supplies (22.1 versus 15.6 days, P<0.01), more prescriptions (4.0 versus 2.6 prescriptions, P<0.01) and greater opioid volume (5.6 versus 1.9 g, P<0.01) from high- than low-volume prescribers. In the United States, high-risk patients obtain a substantial proportion of prescription opioids from low-volume prescribers. The differences in prescribing patterns between high- and low-volume prescribers suggest the importance of interventions targeting prescriber behaviors.

Gabapentin, opioids, and the risk of opioid-related death: A population-based nested case-control study.

BackgroundPrescription opioid use is highly associated with risk of opioid-related death, with 1 of every 550 chronic opioid users dying within approximately 2.5 years of their first opioid prescription. Although gabapentin is widely perceived as safe, drug-induced respiratory depression has been described when gabapentin is used alone or in combination with other medications. Because gabapentin and opioids are both commonly prescribed for pain, the likelihood of co-prescription is high. However, no published studies have examined whether concomitant gabapentin therapy is associated with an increased risk of accidental opioid-related death in patients receiving opioids. The objective of this study was to investigate whether co-prescription of opioids and gabapentin is associated with an increased risk of accidental opioid-related mortality.Methods and findingsWe conducted a population-based nested case–control study among opioid users who were residents of Ontario, Canada, between August 1, 1997, and December 31, 2013, using administrative databases. Cases, defined as opioid users who died of an opioid-related cause, were matched with up to 4 controls who also used opioids on age, sex, year of index date, history of chronic kidney disease, and a disease risk index. After matching, we included 1,256 cases and 4,619 controls. The primary exposure was concomitant gabapentin use in the 120 days preceding the index date. A secondary analysis characterized gabapentin dose as low (<900 mg daily), moderate (900 to 1,799 mg daily), or high (≥1,800 mg daily). A sensitivity analysis examined the effect of concomitant nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use in the preceding 120 days. Overall, 12.3% of cases (155 of 1,256) and 6.8% of controls (313 of 4,619) were prescribed gabapentin in the prior 120 days. After multivariable adjustment, co-prescription of opioids and gabapentin was associated with a significantly increased odds of opioid-related death (odds ratio [OR] 1.99, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.47, p < 0.001; adjusted OR [aOR] 1.49, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.88, p < 0.001) compared to opioid prescription alone. In the dose–response analysis, moderate-dose (OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.46 to 2.87, p < 0.001; aOR 1.56, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.28, p = 0.024) and high-dose (OR 2.20, 95% CI 1.58 to 3.08, p < 0.001; aOR 1.58, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.27, p = 0.015) gabapentin use was associated with a nearly 60% increase in the odds of opioid-related death relative to no concomitant gabapentin use. As expected, we found no significant association between co-prescription of opioids and NSAIDs and opioid-related death (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.27, p = 0.113; aOR 1.14, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.32, p = 0.083). In an exploratory analysis of patients at risk of combined opioid and gabapentin use, we found that 46.0% (45,173 of 98,288) of gabapentin users in calendar year 2013 received at least 1 concomitant prescription for an opioid. This study was limited to individuals eligible for public drug coverage in Ontario, we were only able to identify prescriptions reimbursed by the government and dispensed from retail pharmacies, and information on indication for gabapentin use was not available. Furthermore, as with all observational studies, confounding due to unmeasured variables is a potential source of bias.ConclusionsIn this study we found that among patients receiving prescription opioids, concomitant treatment with gabapentin was associated with a substantial increase in the risk of opioid-related death. Clinicians should consider carefully whether to continue prescribing this combination of products and, when the combination is deemed necessary, should closely monitor their patients and adjust opioid dose accordingly. Future research should investigate whether a similar interaction exists between pregabalin and opioids.

Misuse of prescription opioids among chronic pain patients suffering from anxiety: A cross-sectional analysis.

In the past two decades, chronic pain has been increasingly treated with prescription opioids, particularly in developed countries. This has drawn public concern of possible risks associated with the potential misuse of prescriptions opioids. Previous research has indicated that this may be particularly true among individuals suffering from co-occurring psychiatric disorders. The present study sought to explore rates of misuse among chronic pain patients prescribed opioids, comparing individuals with and without anxiety. Chronic pain patients receiving prescription opioids (N=554) were screened for anxiety using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7) scale and for opioid misuse using the Current Opioid Misuse Measure (COMM). Among patients who screened positive for anxiety (GAD-7≥10), 50% also screened positive for opioid misuse, compared to 10% among those without anxiety. After controlling for possible confounding sociodemographic and clinical variables, patients with anxiety were significantly more prone to screen positive for opioid misuse (Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR)=2.18; 95% Confidence Interval (CI)=1.37-4.17) compared to those without anxiety. This was maintained when conducting separate comparisons for severe, but not mild or moderate, level of anxiety. These findings highlight the importance of detecting and addressing co-occurring anxiety when treating patients with chronic pain who receive prescription opioids.

Depression and anxiety among chronic pain patients receiving prescription opioids and medical marijuana

BackgroundHigh rates of depression and anxiety have been consistently reported among patients suffering from chronic pain. Prescription opioids are one of the most common modalities for pharmacological treatment of pain, however in recent years medical marijuana(MM) has been increasingly used for pain control in the US and in several countries worldwide. The aim of this study was to compare levels of depression and anxiety among pain patients receiving prescription opioids and MM. MethodsParticipants were patients suffering from chronic pain treated with prescription opioids (OP,N=474), MM (N=329) or both (OPMM,N=77). Depression and anxiety were assessed using the depression module of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale (GAD-7). ResultsPrevalence of depression among patients in the OP, MM and OPMM groups was 57.1%, 22.3% and 51.4%, respectively and rates of anxiety were 48.4%, 21.5% and 38.7%, respectively. After controlling for confounders, patients in the OP group were significantly more likely to screen positive for depression (Adjusted Odds Ratio(AOR)=6.18;95%CI=4.12–9.338) and anxiety(AOR=4.12;CI=3.84–5.71)) compared to those in the MM group. Individuals in the OPMM group were more prone for depression (AOR for depression=3.34;CI=1.52–7.34)) compared to those in the MM group. LimitationsCross-sectional study, restricting inference of causality. ConclusionsLevels of depression and anxiety are higher among chronic pain patients receiving prescription opioids compared to those receiving MM. Findings should be taken into consideration when deciding on the most appropriate treatment modality for chronic pain, particularly among those at risk for depression and anxiety.

An Item Bank for Abuse of Prescription Pain Medication from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®).

There is a need to monitor patients receiving prescription opioids to detect possible signs of abuse. To address this need, we developed and calibrated an item bank for severity of abuse of prescription pain medication as part of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS ® ). Comprehensive literature searches yielded an initial bank of 5,310 items relevant to substance use and abuse, including abuse of prescription pain medication, from over 80 unique instruments. After qualitative item analysis (i.e., focus groups, cognitive interviewing, expert review, and item revision), 25 items for abuse of prescribed pain medication were included in field testing. Items were written in a first-person, past-tense format, with a three-month time frame and five response options reflecting frequency or severity. The calibration sample included 448 respondents, 367 from the general population (ascertained through an internet panel) and 81 from community treatment programs participating in the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network. A final bank of 22 items was calibrated using the two-parameter graded response model from item response theory. A seven-item static short form was also developed. The test information curve showed that the PROMIS ® item bank for abuse of prescription pain medication provided substantial information in a broad range of severity. The initial psychometric characteristics of the item bank support its use as a computerized adaptive test or short form, with either version providing a brief, precise, and efficient measure relevant to both clinical and community samples.

Factors Increasing Addiction Risk in Non-Cancer Pain Patients Receiving Prescription Opioids. A Descriptive Study

Factors Increasing Addiction Risk in Non-Cancer Pain Patients Receiving Prescription Opioids. A Descriptive Study