Prevalence of prescription opioid use disorder among chronic opioid therapy patients after health plan opioid dose and risk reduction initiatives

Prevalence of problematic pharmaceutical opioid use in patients with chronic non-cancer pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) is one of the most common causes of disability globally. Opioid prescribing to treat CNCP remains widespread, despite limited evidence of long-term clinical benefit and evidence of harm such as problematic pharmaceutical opioid use (POU) and overdose. The study aimed to measure the prevalence of POU in CNCP patients treated with opioid analgesics.

METHOD

A comprehensive systematic literature review and meta-analysis was undertaken using MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO databases from inception to 27 January 2021. We included studies from all settings with participants aged ≥ 12 with non-cancer pain of ≥ 3 months duration, treated with opioid analgesics. We excluded case-control studies, as they cannot be used to generate prevalence estimates. POU was defined using four categories: dependence and opioid use disorder (D&OUD), signs and symptoms of D&OUD (S&S), aberrant behaviour (AB) and at risk of D&OUD. We used a random-effects multi-level meta-analytical model. We evaluated inconsistency using the I2 statistic and explored heterogeneity using subgroup analyses and meta-regressions.

RESULTS

A total of 148 studies were included with > 4.3 million participants; 1% of studies were classified as high risk of bias. The pooled prevalence was 9.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 5.7-14.8%; I2 = 99.9%] for D&OUD, 29.6% (95% CI = 22.1-38.3%, I2 = 99.3%) for S&S and 22% (95% CI = 17.4-27.3%, I2 = 99.8%) for AB. The prevalence of those at risk of D&OUD was 12.4% (95% CI = 4.3-30.7%, I2 = 99.6%). Prevalence was affected by study setting, study design and diagnostic tool. Due to the high heterogeneity, the findings should be interpreted with caution.

CONCLUSIONS

Problematic pharmaceutical opioid use appears to be common in chronic pain patients treated with opioid analgesics, with nearly one in 10 experiencing dependence and opioid use disorder, one in three showing signs and symptoms of dependence and opioid use disorder and one in five showing aberrant behaviour.

CDC Clinical Practice Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Pain - United States, 2022

This guideline provides recommendations for clinicians providing pain care, including those prescribing opioids, for outpatients aged ≥18 years. It updates the CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain - United States, 2016 (MMWR Recomm Rep 2016;65[No. RR-1]:1-49) and includes recommendations for managing acute (duration of <1 month), subacute (duration of 1-3 months), and chronic (duration of >3 months) pain. The recommendations do not apply to pain related to sickle cell disease or cancer or to patients receiving palliative or end-of-life care. The guideline addresses the following four areas: 1) determining whether or not to initiate opioids for pain, 2) selecting opioids and determining opioid dosages, 3) deciding duration of initial opioid prescription and conducting follow-up, and 4) assessing risk and addressing potential harms of opioid use. CDC developed the guideline using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Recommendations are based on systematic reviews of the scientific evidence and reflect considerations of benefits and harms, patient and clinician values and preferences, and resource allocation. CDC obtained input from the Board of Scientific Counselors of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (a federally chartered advisory committee), the public, and peer reviewers. CDC recommends that persons with pain receive appropriate pain treatment, with careful consideration of the benefits and risks of all treatment options in the context of the patient's circumstances. Recommendations should not be applied as inflexible standards of care across patient populations. This clinical practice guideline is intended to improve communication between clinicians and patients about the benefits and risks of pain treatments, including opioid therapy; improve the effectiveness and safety of pain treatment; mitigate pain; improve function and quality of life for patients with pain; and reduce risks associated with opioid pain therapy, including opioid use disorder, overdose, and death.

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.

Machine learning nonresponse adjustment of patient-reported opioid consumption data to enable consumption-informed postoperative opioid prescribing guidelines

Background

Post-discharge opioid consumption is a crucial patient-reported outcome informing opioid prescribing guidelines, but its collection is resource-intensive and vulnerable to inaccuracy due to nonresponse bias.

Methods

We developed a post-discharge text message-to-web survey system for efficient collection of patient-reported pain outcomes. We prospectively recruited surgical patients at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, Massachusetts from March 2019 through October 2020, sending an SMS link to a secure web survey to quantify opioids consumed after discharge from hospitalization. Patient factors extracted from the electronic health record were tested for nonresponse bias and observable confounding. Following targeted learning-based nonresponse adjustment, procedure-specific opioid consumption quantiles (medians and 75th percentiles) were estimated and compared to a previous telephone-based reference survey.

Results

6553 patients were included. Opioid consumption was measured in 44% of patients (2868), including 21% (1342) through survey response. Characteristics associated with inability to measure opioid consumption included age, tobacco use, and prescribed opioid dose. Among the 10 most common procedures, median consumption was only 36% of the median prescription size; 64% of prescribed opioids were not consumed. Among those procedures, nonresponse adjustment corrected the median opioid consumption by an average of 37% (IQR: 7, 65%) compared to unadjusted estimates, and corrected the 75th percentile by an average of 5% (IQR: 0, 12%). This brought median estimates for 5/10 procedures closer to telephone survey-based consumption estimates, and 75th percentile estimates for 2/10 procedures closer to telephone survey-based estimates.

Conclusions

SMS-recruited online surveying can generate reliable opioid consumption estimates after nonresponse adjustment using patient factors recorded in the electronic health record, protecting patients from the risk of inaccurate prescription guidelines.

Differential Experience of Interdose Withdrawal During Long-Term Opioid Therapy and its Association With Patient and Treatment Characteristics: A Latent Class Analysis in Chronic Pain Population

Opioid withdrawal is characterized by a set of physical and psychological symptoms that depend on both opioid and patient specific characteristics. The present study aims to identify different latent classes of chronic pain patients according to the type of opioid withdrawal symptoms experienced, and to analyze the relationships between the classes and demographic, opioid therapy, psychological and substance use variables. This cross-sectional descriptive study included 391 chronic pain patients on long-term opioid therapy. A Latent Class Analysis (LCA) identified 3 classes (BIC = 7051.89, entropy = .87, LRTs P < .01). The mild withdrawal class showed low probabilities of presenting physical and psychological symptoms, the moderate withdrawal class was characterized by experiencing psychological symptoms, and the severe withdrawal class stood out for high probabilities of presenting both types of symptoms. The classes differed from each other, with higher rates of moderate-severe POUD, opioid misuse, anxiety, depression, and greater pain intensity and interference in more severe withdrawal classes (P < .05). The multinomial logistic regression showed that moderate-severe POUD and anxiety were the strongest variables related to moderate (OR_POUD = 3.34, OR_Anxiety = 2.58) and severe withdrawal classes (OR_POUD = 4.26, OR_Anxiety = 5.15). Considering that POUD and anxiety were strongly related to a more severe withdrawal syndrome, the inclusion of psychological interventions in pain management seems critical in this population. PERSPECTIVE: Although interdose opioid withdrawal is common in chronic pain patients, this study shows 3 different patterns in its experience (mild, moderate, and severe withdrawal). A more severe withdrawal may result in reduced effectiveness of opioids in relieving pain and increased negative consequences, such as higher risk of POUD. Findings that could help improve chronic pain management.

Opioids and Chronic Pain: An Analytic Review of the Clinical Evidence

We conducted an analytic review of the clinical scientific literature bearing on the use of opioids for treatment of chronic non-cancer pain in the United States. There is substantial, albeit not definitive, scientific evidence of the effectiveness of opioids in treating pain and of high variability in opioid dose requirements and side effects. The estimated risk of death from opioid treatment involving doses above 100 MMED is ~0.25%/year. Multiple large studies refute the concept that short-term use of opioids to treat acute pain predisposes to development of opioid use disorder. The prevalence of opioid use disorder associated with prescription opioids is likely &lt;3%. Morbidity, mortality, and financial costs of inadequate treatment of the 18 million Americans with moderate to severe chronic pain are high. Because of the absence of comparative effectiveness studies, there are no scientific grounds for considering alternative non-pharmacologic treatments as an adequate substitute for opioid therapy but these treatments might serve to augment opioid therapy, thereby reducing dosage. There are reasons to question the ostensible risks of co-prescription of opioids and benzodiazepines. As the causes of the opioid crisis have come into focus, it has become clear that the crisis resides predominantly in the streets and that efforts to curtail it by constraining opioid treatment in the clinic are unlikely to succeed.

Mind-body approaches targeting the psychological aspects of opioid use problems in patients with chronic pain: evidence and opportunities

Opioids are commonly prescribed for the management of patients with chronic noncancer pain. Despite the potential analgesic benefits of opioids, long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) may be accompanied by problems such as opioid misuse and opioid use disorder (OUD). In this review, we begin with a description of opioid misuse and OUD and the patient-specific factors associated with these problems among patients with chronic pain. We will focus primarily on highlighting the predominant role played by psychological factors in the occurrence of opioid misuse and OUD in these patients. Several psychological factors have been found to be associated with opioid use problems in patients with chronic pain, and evidence indicates that patients presenting with psychological disturbances are particularly at risk of transitioning to long-term opioid use, engaging in opioid misuse behaviors, and developing OUD. The biological factors that might underlie the association between psychological disturbances and opioid use problems in patients with chronic pain have yet to be fully elucidated, but a growing number of studies suggest that dysfunctions in reward, appetitive, autonomic, and neurocognitive systems might be involved. We end with an overview of specific types of psychological interventions that have been put forward to prevent or reduce the occurrence of opioid misuse and OUD in patients with chronic pain who are prescribed LTOT.

Late- and Typical-Onset Heroin Use Among Older Adults Seeking Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder

OBJECTIVE

Analyze 10-year trends in opioid use disorder with heroin (OUD-H) among older persons and to compare those with typical-onset (age <30 years) to those with late (age 30+) onset.

DESIGN

Naturalistic observation using the most recent (2008-2017) Treatment Episode Data Set-Admissions (TEDS-A).

SETTING

Admission records in TEDS-A come from all public and private U.S. programs for substance use disorder treatment receiving public funding.

PARTICIPANTS

U.S. adults aged 55 years and older entering treatment for the first time between 2008 and 2017 to treat OUD-H.

MEASUREMENTS

Admission trends, demographics, substance use history.

RESULTS

The number of older adults who entered treatment for OUD-H nearly tripled between 2007 and 2017. Compared to those with typical-onset (before age 30), those with late-onset heroin use were more likely to be white, female, more highly educated, and rural. Older adults with late-onset were more likely to be referred to treatment by an employer and less likely to be referred by the criminal justice system. Those with late-onset were more likely to use heroin more frequently but less likely to inject heroin than those with typical-onset. Those with typical onset were more likely to receive medication for addiction treatment than those with late-onset.

CONCLUSION

Late-onset heroin use is increasing among older U.S. adults. Research is needed to understand the unique needs of this population better. As this population grows, geriatric psychiatrists may be increasingly called upon to provide specialized care to people with late-onset OUD-H.

Clinical and psychological factors associated with interdose opioid withdrawal in chronic pain population

BACKGROUND

The DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for Prescription Opioid-Use Disorder (POUD) have undergone some significant changes. One of the most controversial changes has been the elimination of the withdrawal symptoms criterion when opioid use is under appropriate medical supervision. For this reason, the goal of this study was to analyze factors associated with opioid withdrawal in patients with chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP).

METHODS

This cross-sectional descriptive study involved 404 patients who use prescription opioids for long-term treatment (≥90 days) of CNCP. Measures included sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, POUD, withdrawal symptoms, craving, anxiety-depressive symptoms, and pain intensity and interference.

RESULTS

Forty-seven percent (n = 193) of the sample reported moderate-severe withdrawal symptoms, which were associated with lower age, higher daily morphine dose and duration of treatment with opioids, moderate-severe POUD, use of psychotropic drugs, higher anxiety-depressive symptoms, and greater pain intensity and interference (p < .05). Binary logistic regression analysis showed that moderate-severe POUD (OR = 2.82), anxiety (OR = 2.21), depression (OR = 1.81), higher pain interference (OR = 1.05), and longer duration of treatment with opioids were the strongest factors associated with moderate-severe withdrawal symptoms (p < .05).

CONCLUSION

Psychological factors seem to play a key role in the severity of withdrawal symptoms. Since greater intensity of these symptoms increases the risk of developing POUD, knowing the factors associated with withdrawal may be useful in developing preventive psychological interventions.

Analgesic Opioid Misuse and Opioid Use Disorder among Patients with Chronic Non-Cancer Pain and Prescribed Opioids in a Pain Centre in France

(1) Background: Chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) remains a public health challenge around the world. Opioids (PO) have been increasingly used in the treatment of CNCP in the last 20 years. This study aimed to assess the prevalence of opioid misuse and prescribed-opioid use disorder (p-OUD) among patients with CNCP in a pain centre in France, and to analyse risk factors for moderate or severe p-OUD. (2) Method: A cross-sectional study was conducted, including patients consulting for pain management in the pain centre of Brest University Hospital. A self-questionnaire was administered (sociodemographic data, medical data, PO misuse, and p-OUD according the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5 (DSM 5) criteria). Descriptive, univariate, and multivariate analyses were conducted, together with a principal component analysis, in order to identify factors associated with p-OUD. (3) Results: In total, 115 patients were included, the majority of whom were women, with a mean age of 52 years old [18–82]; 64.3% (n = 74) had a current prescription for opioid analgesics (weak or strong). In this group, 56.7% (n = 42) had no or only mild p-OUD and 43.3% (n = 32) had current moderate or severe p-OUD. Patients with moderate or severe p-OUD were more likely to have a current antidepressant prescription, to have had psychotherapy, to currently use strong opioids and oxycodone, and to report taking more frequent doses than prescribed and feeling dependent. (4) Conclusions: We showed that the prevalence of current moderate/severe p-OUD concerned 43.3% of the patients with a CNCP seeking treatment in a pain centre. According to these results, several measures are relevant in managing p-OUD among patients with CNCP.

Emergency Department Utilization Among People Living With HIV on Chronic Opioid Therapy

Chronic pain among people with HIV (PWH) is a driving factor of emergency department (ED) utilization, and it is often treated with chronic opioid therapy (COT). We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of a prospective observational cohort of PWH on COT at 2 hospital-based clinics to determine whether COT-specific factors are associated with ED utilization among PWH. The primary outcome was an ED visit within 12 months after study enrollment. We used stepwise logistic regression including age, gender, opioid duration, hepatitis C, depression, prior ED visits, and Charlson comorbidity index. Of 153 study participants, n = 69 (45%) had an ED visit; 25% of ED visits were pain-related. High dose opioids, benzodiazepine co-prescribing, and lack of opioid treatment agreements were not associated with ED utilization, but prior ED visits (p = 0.002), depression (p = 0.001) and higher Charlson comorbidity score (p = 0.003) were associated with ED utilization. COT-specific factors were not associated with increased ED utilization among PWH.

Rate of opioid use disorder in adults who received prescription opioid pain therapy-A secondary data analysis

Background and aims

Data on rates of prescription opioid use disorder (pOUD) in European countries is limited. The aim of this investigation was to analyze a representative population sample regarding the 1-year prevalence of opioid use disorder in patients who received prescription opioid pain therapy and to identify related risk factors.

Design

Cross-sectional secondary data analysis

Setting

Secondary data analysis based on data from the 2015 Epidemiological Survey of Substance Abuse (ESA 2015) in Germany

Participants

German-speaking individuals living in private households aged 18 to 64 years were investigated. A total of 9204 individuals participated in the survey, resulting in a response rate of 52.2%.

Primary and secondary outcome measures

Primary outcome measure was the weighted prevalence of pOUD in the subgroup of study participants who had received prescription opioids. Secondary outcome measure was an analysis of risk factors connected with pOUD in the same subgroup.

Findings

A total of n = 9204 participants were included in the study of which n = 275 had received an opioid prescription in the last 12 months of which n = 54 were diagnosed with pOUD. The weighted 1-year prevalence of pOUD was 21.2% (mild: 14.7% | moderate: 3.5% | severe: 2.9%). Participants who had received opioid pain therapy had significantly higher odds of pOUD if they reported signs of depression (OR: 2.69; CI 95%: 1.13–6.38), inexplicable physical complaints (OR: 2.68; CI 95%: 1.14–6.31) or a psychiatric diagnosis (OR: 4.12; CI 95%: 1.36–12.43), and significantly lower odds of pOUD if they reported the use of non-opioid painkillers (OR: 0.27; CI 95%: 0.09–0.81).

Conclusions

pOUD is a common phenomenon in working-age patients who receive prescription opioid pain therapy in Germany and may be related to the co-existence of psychosomatic and psychiatric disorders such as depression.

Understanding Barriers and Facilitators to the Uptake of Best Practices for the Treatment of Co-Occurring Chronic Pain and Opioid Use Disorder

Objective: Patients with a combination of chronic pain and opioid use disorder have unique needs and may present a challenge for clinicians and health care systems. The objective of the present study was to use qualitative methods to explore factors influencing the uptake of best practices for co-occurring chronic pain and opioid use disorder in order to inform a quantitative survey assessing primary care provider capacity to appropriately treat this dual diagnosis. Methods: Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 11 primary care providers (PCPs) to inform the development of a questionnaire. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Fifteen comments from an open-ended question on the questionnaire were added to the analyses as they described factors that were not elucidated in the interviews. Barriers and facilitators were identified and categorized using the CFIR codebook. Results: The most frequently described barriers were cost and inadequate access to appropriate treatments, external policies, and available resources (e.g., risk assessment tools). The most frequently described facilitators were the presence of a network or team, patient-specific needs, and the learning climate. Knowledge and beliefs were frequently described as both barriers and facilitators. Conclusions: While substantial funding has been allocated to initiatives aimed at increasing PCP capacity to treat this population, numerous barriers to adopting appropriate practices still exist. Future research should focus on developing and testing implementation strategies that leverage the facilitators and overcome the barriers illustrated here to improve the uptake of evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of co-occurring chronic pain and opioid use disorder.

Non-invasive brain stimulation modalities for the treatment and prevention of opioid use disorder: a systematic review of the literature

The U.S. is currently facing an unprecedented epidemic of opioid-related deaths. Despite the efficacy of the current treatments for opioid use disorder (OUD), including psychosocial interventions and medication-assisted therapy (MAT), many patients remain treatment-resistant and at high risk for overdose. A potential augmentation strategy includes the use of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), and auricular vagus nerve stimulation (aVNS). These approaches may have therapeutic benefits by directly or indirectly modulating the neurocircuitry affected in OUD. In this review, we evaluate the available studies on NIBS in the context of OUD withdrawal and detoxification, maintenance, and cravings, while also considering analgesia and safety concerns. In the context of opioid withdrawal and detoxification, a percutaneous form of aVNS has positive results in open-label trials, but has not yet been tested against sham. No randomized studies have reported on the safety and efficacy of NIBS specifically for maintenance treatment in OUD. TMS and tDCS have demonstrated effects on cravings, although published studies were limited by small sample sizes. NIBS may play a role in reducing exposure to opioids and the risk of developing OUD, as demonstrated by studies using tDCS in an experimental pain condition and TMS in a post-operative setting. Overall, while the preliminary evidence and safety for NIBS in the prevention and treatment of OUD appears promising, further research is needed with larger sample sizes, placebo control, and objective biomarkers as outcome measures before strong conclusions can be drawn.

Increasing collaboration on substance use disorder research with primary care practices through the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network

BACKGROUND

The National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (CTN) called for its national nodes to promote the translation of evidence-based interventions from substance use disorder (SUD) research into clinical practices. This collaborative demonstration project engaged CTN-affiliated practice-based research networks (PBRNs) in research that describes aspects of opioid prescribing in primary care.

METHODS

Six PBRNs queried electronic health records from a convenience sample of 134 practices (84 participants) to identify the percent of adult patients with an office visit who were prescribed an opioid medication from October 1, 2015, to September 30, 2016, and, of those, the percent also prescribed a sedative in that year. Seven PBRNs sent an e-mail survey to a convenience sample of 108 practices (58 participants) about their opioid management policies and procedures during the project year.

RESULTS

Of 561,017 adult patients with a visit to one of the 84 clinics in the project year, 22.9% (PBRN range 3.1%-25.4%) were prescribed opioid medications, and 52.1% (PBRN range 8.5%-60.6%) of those were prescribed a sedative in the same year. Of the 58 practices returning a survey (45.3% response rate), 98.1% had formal written treatment agreements for chronic opioid therapy, 68.5% had written opioid prescribing policies, and 43.4% provided reports to providers with feedback on opioid management. Only 24.1% were providing buprenorphine for OUD.

CONCLUSION

CTN-affiliated PBRNs demonstrated their ability to collaborate on a project related to opioid management; results highlight the important role for PBRNs in OUD treatment, research, and the need for interventions and additional policies addressing opioid prescribing in primary care practice.

Trends in prescription opioid use and dose trajectories before opioid use disorder or overdose in US adults from 2006 to 2016: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

With governments' increasing efforts to curb opioid prescription use and limit dose below the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-recommended threshold of 90 morphine milligram equivalents per day, little is known about prescription opioid patterns preceding opioid use disorder (OUD) or overdose. This study aimed to determine prescribed opioid fills and dose trajectories in the year before an incident OUD or overdose diagnosis using a 2005-2016 commercial healthcare database.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

This cross-sectional study identified individuals aged 18 to 64 years with incident OUD or overdose in the United States. We measured the prevalence of opioid prescription fills and trajectories of opioid morphine equivalent dose (MED) prescribed during the 12-month period before the diagnosis. Of 227,038 adults with incident OUD or overdose, 33.1% were aged 18 to 30 years, 52.9% were males, and 85.0% were metropolitan residents. Half (50.5%) of the patients had a diagnosis of chronic pain, 32.7% had depression, and 20.3% had anxiety. Overall, 79,747 (35.1%) patients filled no opioid prescription in the 12 months before OUD or overdose diagnosis, with the proportion significantly increasing between 2006 and 2016 (adjusted prevalence ratio, 1.86; 95% CI 1.79-1.93; P < 0.001). Patients without (versus with) prescribed opioids tended to be younger males and metropolitan and Northeast US residents. Of 145,609 patients who filled opioid prescriptions, 5 distinct prescribed daily dose trajectories preceding diagnosis emerged: consistent low dose (<3 mg MED, 34.6%), consistent moderate dose (20 mg MED, 27.3%), consistent high dose (150 mg MED, 15.0%), escalating dose (from <3 to 20 mg MED, 13.7%), and de-escalating dose (from 20 to <3mg MED, 9.4%). Overall, over two-thirds of patients with OUD or overdose with prescription opioids were prescribed a mean daily dose below 90 mg MED before diagnosis. Major limitations include the limited generalizability of the study findings and lack of information on out-of-pocket drug spending, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status of participants, which prevents analyses addressing these characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we found that absence of opioid prescription fills in the year before incident OUD or overdose diagnosis was prevalent, and the majority of the patients received prescription opioid doses below the risk threshold of 90 mg MED. An increasing proportion of high-risk patients could be missed by current programs solely based on opioid prescribing and dispensing information in this new era of limited access to prescription opioids.

Prevalence and Expenses of Outpatient Opioid Prescriptions, With Associated Sociodemographic, Economic, and Work Characteristics

Information on opioids obtained by workers is important for both health and safety. We examined the prevalence and total expenses of obtaining outpatient opioid prescriptions, along with associated sociodemographic, economic, and work characteristics, in national samples of U.S. workers. We used Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data (2007–2016) along with descriptive and multiple logistic regression. During the study period, an estimated 21 million workers (12.6%) aged 16 years or older obtained one or more outpatient opioid prescriptions, at an expense of $2.81 billion per year. Private health insurance covered half of the total opioid expenses for workers. The prevalence of obtaining opioid prescriptions was higher for women than for men, but men had higher opioid expenses. In addition, the prevalence of obtaining opioid prescriptions was higher for workers who were older; non-Hispanic white; divorced, separated, or widowed; and non-college-educated. There is an inverse relationship between family income and the likelihood of obtaining opioids. Compared to workers with private insurance, workers with public health insurance had higher expenses for opioid prescriptions. Finally, workers in occupations at higher risk for injury and illness – including construction and extraction; farming; service; and production, transportation, and material moving occupations – were more likely to obtain opioid prescriptions.

Opioid-sparing effects of 10 kHz spinal cord stimulation: a review of clinical evidence

Chronic pain is a common condition that affects the physical, emotional, and mental well‐being of patients and can significantly diminish their quality of life. Due to growing concerns about the substantial risks of long‐term opioid use, both governmental agencies and professional societies have recommended prioritizing the use of nonpharmacologic treatments, when suitable, in order to reduce or eliminate the need for opioid use. The use of 10 kHz spinal cord stimulation (10 kHz SCS) is one such nonpharmacologic alternative for the treatment of chronic, intractable pain of the trunk and limbs. This review examines published clinical data regarding the efficacy of 10 kHz SCS for decreasing chronic pain in patients and its potential to reduce or eliminate opioid usage. Multiple prospective and retrospective studies in patients with intractable pain demonstrated that 10 kHz SCS treatment provided ≥50% pain relief in >70% patients after at least 1 year of treatment. Pain relief with 10 kHz SCS therapy ranged from 54% to 87% in the studies. More importantly, the mean daily dose of opioids required by patients in these studies was reduced after 10 kHz SCS treatment, and on average over 60% patients in studies either reduced or eliminated opioids at the last follow‐up.

Opioid use disorder in chronic non-cancer pain in Germany: a cross sectional study

OBJECTIVES

The DSM-5 diagnosis 'opioid use disorder' (OUD) was established to better describe and detect significant impairment or distress related to opioid use. There is no data on rates of OUD in chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) in European countries. Therefore, our objective was to screen patients in specialised pain centres for signs of OUD.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional questionnaire study.

SETTING

Four outpatient pain clinics in the area of Bonn, Germany.

PARTICIPANTS

n=204 patients participated in the study (response rate: 87.9%). All adult patients with opioid pain therapy >6 months for CNCP were included. Excluded were patients with malignant disease, patients who could not collect their prescription themselves due to age or multimorbidity and patients on opioid-maintenance therapy.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURE

Primary outcome measure was the proportion of patients with mild to severe OUD.

RESULTS

One-fourth (26.5%) of participants were diagnosed with OUD. Moderate to severe disorder was found in 9.3. Young age was the only connected risk factor (OR 0.96 [95% CI 0.94 to 0.99], p: 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

OUD is a relevant diagnosis in patients on long-term opioid therapy for CNCP in the Bonn area. Careful follow-up by the attending physicians is advisable, especially in patients with moderate or severe disorder.

Impact of initiatives to reduce prescription opioid risks on medically attended injuries in people using chronic opioid therapy

PURPOSE

The purpose of the study is to determine whether initiatives to improve the safety of opioid prescribing decreased injuries in people using chronic opioid therapy (COT).

METHODS

We conducted an interrupted time series analysis using data from Group Health (GH), an integrated health care delivery system in the United States. In 2007, GH implemented initiatives which substantially reduced daily opioid dose and increased patient monitoring. Among GH members age 18 or older receiving COT between 2006 and 2014, we compared injury rates for patients in GH's integrated group practice (IGP; exposed to the initiatives) vs patients cared for by contracted providers (not exposed). Injuries were identified using a validated algorithm. We calculated injury incidence during the baseline (preintervention) period from 2006 to 2007; the dose reduction period, 2008 to 2010; and the risk stratification and monitoring period, 2010 to 2014. Using modified Poisson regression, we estimated adjusted relative risks (RRs) representing the relative change per year in injury rates.

RESULTS

Among 21 853 people receiving COT in the IGP and 8260 in contracted care, there were 2679 injuries during follow-up. The baseline injury rate was 1.0% per calendar quarter in the IGP and 0.9% in contracted care. Risk reduction initiatives did not decrease injury rates: Within the IGP, the RR in the dose reduction period was 1.01 (95% CI, 0.95-1.07) and in the risk stratification and monitoring period, 0.99 (95% CI, 0.95-1.04). Injury trends did not differ between the two care settings.

CONCLUSIONS

Risk reduction initiatives did not decrease injuries in people using COT.

Impact of Chronic Opioid Therapy Risk Reduction Initiatives on Opioid Overdose

We assessed the effects of opioid dose and risk reduction initiatives on opioid overdose rates among patients on chronic opioid therapy (COT). Using an interrupted time series design, we compared trends in overdose rates. We compared patients on COT in settings that implemented a COT dose reduction initiative and then a COT risk stratification/monitoring initiative to similar patients on COT from control settings. From 2006 to 2014, 31,142 patients on COT (22,673 intervention, 8,469 control) experienced 311 fatal or nonfatal opioid overdoses. In primary analyses, changes in opioid overdose rates among patients on COT did not differ significantly between intervention and control settings with the implementation of either dose reduction or risk stratification/monitoring. In planned secondary analyses, overdose rates decreased significantly (17% per year) during the dose reduction initiative among patients on COT in intervention settings (relative annual change, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.99), but not in control settings (0.98. 95% confidence interval, 0.70-1.39). We conclude that overdose rates among patients on COT were not decreased by risk stratification and monitoring initiatives. Results were inconsistent for COT dose reduction, with no significant difference between intervention and control settings (primary hypothesis test), but a significant decrease in overdose rates within the intervention setting during dose reduction (secondary hypothesis test). PERSPECTIVE: Risk stratification/monitoring interventions among patients on COT did not decrease opioid overdose rates. The effects of COT dose reduction on opioid overdose rates were inconsistent. Greater decreases in COT dose, a larger control group, or both may have been needed to identify conclusive reductions in opioid overdose rates.

Opioid tapering in patients with prescription opioid use disorder: A retrospective study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Opioid use disorder (OUD) refers to a maladaptive pattern of opioid use leading to clinically significant impairment or distress. OUD causes, and vice versa, misuses and abuse of opioid medications. Clinicians face daily challenges to treat patients with prescription opioid use disorder. An evidence-based management for people who are already addicted to opioids has been identified as the national priority in the US; however, options are limited in clinical practices. In this study, we aimed to explore the success rate and important adjuvant medications in the medication assisted treatment with temporary use of methadone for opioid discontinuation in patients with prescription OUD.

METHODS

This is a retrospective chart review performed at a private physician office for physical medicine and rehabilitation. We reviewed all medical records dated between December 1st, 2011 and August 30th, 2016. The initial evaluation of the included patients (N=140) was completed between December 1st, 2011 and December 31st, 2014. They all have concumittant prescription OUD and chronic non-cancer pain. The patients (87 female and 53 male) were 46.7±12.7 years old, and had a history of opioid use of 7.7±6.1 years. All patients received the comprehensive opioid taper treatments (including interventional pain management techniques, psychotherapy, acupuncture, physical modalities and exercises, and adjuvant medications) on top of the medication assisted treatment using methadone (transient use). Opioid tapering was considered successful when no opioid medication was used in the last patient visit.

RESULTS

The 140 patients had pain of 9.6±8.4 years with 8/10 intensity before treatment which decreased after treatment in all comparisons (p<0.001 for all). Opioids were successfully tapered off in 39 (27.9%) patients after 6.6±6.7 visits over 8.8±7.2 months; these patients maintained opioid abstinence over 14.3±13.0 months with regular office visits. Among the 101 patients with unsuccessful opioid tapering, 13 patients only visited the outpatient clinic once. Significant differences were found between patients with and without successful opioid tapering in treatment duration, number of clinic visits, the use of mirtazepine, bupropion, topiramate, and trigger point injections with the univariate analyses. The use of mirtazepine (OR, 3.75; 95% CI, 1.48-9.49), topiramate (OR, 5.61; 95% CI, 1.91-16.48), or bupropion (OR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.08-5.81) was significantly associated with successful opioid tapering. The associations remain significant for mirtazepine and topiramate (not bupropion) in different adjusted models.

CONCLUSIONS

With comprehensive treatments, 27.9% of patients had successful opioid tapering with opioid abstinence for over a year. The use of mirtazepine, topiramate, or likely bupropion was associated with successful opioid tapering in the medication assisted treatment with temporary use of methadone. Opioid tapering may be a practical option and should be considered for managing prescription OUD.

IMPLICATIONS

For patients with OUD, indefinite opioid maintenance treatment may not be necessary. Considering the ethical values of autonomy, nonmaleficence, and beneficence, clinicians should provide patients with OUD the option of opioid tapering.