Association between opioid analgesic plus benzodiazepine use and death: A case-crossover study

Opioid-related polysubstance use and its effect on mortality and health resource utilization among trauma patients

BACKGROUND

Pre-injury opioid use is common, but the effects of opioid-related polysubstance use on mortality and health resources utilization (HRU) have not been investigated yet. The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of opioid-related polysubstance use on mortality and HRU among patients in trauma centres in the US.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study using the US National Trauma Databank from the year 2017 to 2019. Patients (≥ 18 years of age) who tested positive for opioids were included. Patients were analysed based on the number of substances used (i.e., opioids only, two substances (opioids + 1 substance), and three or more than three substances (opioids +  ≥ 2 substances)), and polysubstance by type (i.e., opioids only, opioids and alcohol, opioids and stimulants, opioids and benzodiazepine, and other combinations). Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine the association between polysubstance use, mortality and HRU (i.e., need for hospital admission, ICU, and mechanical ventilation).

RESULTS

Both polysubstance by number and type analyses showed that opioid-related polysubstance use was not significantly associated with mortality compared to opioids only. The odds of hospital admission were higher among the opioids and benzodiazepines group (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.06-1.24, p < 0.01). The need for ICU was magnified using benzodiazepines and stimulants with opioids (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.27-1.63, p < 0.01) when compared to the opioids only group.

CONCLUSION

Opioid-related pre-injury polysubstance use was associated with higher HRU in trauma patients. The evidence can be used by policymakers and practitioners to improve patient outcomes in trauma centers.

Evaluating the use of methods to mitigate bias from non-transient medications in the case-crossover design: A systematic review

PURPOSE

The case-crossover design is a self-controlled study design used to compare exposure immediately preceding an event occurrence with exposure in earlier control periods. The design is most suitable for transient exposures in order to avoid biases that can be problematic when using the case-crossover design for non-transient (i.e., chronic) exposures. Our goal was to conduct a systematic review of case-crossover studies and its variants (case-time-control and case-case-time-control) in order to compare design and analysis choices by medication type.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search to identify recent case-crossover, case-time-control, and case-case-time-control studies focused on medication exposures. Articles indexed in MEDLINE and EMBASE using these study designs that were published between January 2015 and December 2021 in the English language were identified. Reviews, methodological studies, commentaries, articles without medications as the exposure of interest, and articles with no available full text were excluded. Study characteristics including study design, outcome, risk window, control window, reporting of discordant pairs, and inclusion of sensitivity analyses were summarized overall and by medication type. We further evaluated the implementation of recommended methods to account for biases introduced by non-transient exposures among articles that used the case-crossover design on a non-transient exposure.

RESULTS

Of the 2036 articles initially identified, 114 articles were included. The case-crossover was the most common study design (88%), followed by the case-time-control (17%), and case-case-time-control (3%). Fifty-three percent of the articles included only transient medications, 35% included only non-transient medications, and 12% included both. Across years, the proportion of case-crossover articles evaluating a non-transient medication ranged from 30% in 2018 to 69% in 2017. We found that 41% of the articles that evaluated a non-transient medication did not apply any of the recommended methods to account for biases and more than half of which were conducted by authors with no previous publication history of case-crossover studies.

CONCLUSION

Using the case-crossover design to evaluate a non-transient medication remains common in pharmacoepidemiology. Researchers should apply appropriate design and analysis choices when opting to use a case-crossover design with non-transient medication exposures.

Immeasurable Time Bias in Self-controlled Designs: Case-crossover, Case-time-control, and Case-case-time-control Analyses

BACKGROUND

Impact of immeasurable time bias (IMTB) is yet to be examined in self-controlled designs.

METHODS

We conducted case-crossover, case-time-control, and case-case-time-control analyses using Korea's healthcare database. Two empirical examples among elderly patients were used: 1) benzodiazepines-hip fracture; 2) benzodiazepines-mortality. For cases, the date of hip fracture diagnosis or death was defined as the index date, and the inherited date of their matched cases for controls or future cases. Exposure was assessed in the 1-30 day (hazard) and 61-90 day (control) windows preceding the index date. A non-missing exposure setting included in- and outpatient prescriptions and the pseudo-outpatient setting included only the outpatients. Conditional logistic regression was done to estimate odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), where the relative difference in OR among the two settings was calculated to quantify the IMTB.

RESULTS

The IMTB had negligible impacts in the hip fracture example in the case-crossover (non-missing exposure setting OR 1.27; 95% CI, 1.12-1.44; pseudo-outpatient setting OR 1.21; 95% CI, 1.06-1.39; magnitude 0.05), case-time-control (OR 1.18; 95% CI, 0.98-1.44; OR 1.13; 95% CI, 0.92-1.38; 0.04, respectively), and case-case-time-control analyses (OR 0.99; 95% CI, 0.80-1.23; OR 0.94; 95% CI, 0.75-1.18; 0.05, respectively). In the mortality example, IMTB had significant impacts in the case-crossover (non-missing exposure setting OR 1.44; 95% CI, 1.36-1.52; pseudo-outpatient setting OR 0.72; 95% CI, 0.67-0.78; magnitude 1.00), case-time-control (OR 1.38; 95% CI, 1.26-1.51; OR 0.68; 95% CI, 0.61-0.76; 1.03, respectively), and case-case-time-control analyses (OR 1.27; 95% CI, 1.15-1.40; OR 0.62; 95% CI, 0.55-0.69; 1.05, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Although IMTB had negligible impacts on the drug's effect on acute events, as these are unlikely to be accompanied with hospitalizations, it negatively biased the drug's effect on mortality, an outcome with prodromal phases, in the three self-controlled designs.

Benzodiazepines Remain Important Therapeutic Options in Psychiatric Practice

Benzodiazepines and medications acting on benzodiazepine receptors that do not have a benzodiazepine structure (z-drugs) have been viewed by some experts and regulatory bodies as having limited benefit and significant risks. Data presented in this article support the use of these medications as treatments of choice for acute situational anxiety, chronic anxiety disorders, insomnia, alcohol withdrawal syndromes, and catatonia. They may also be useful adjuncts in the treatment of anxious depression and mania, and for medically ill patients. Tolerance develops to sedation and possibly psychomotor impairment, but not to the anxiolytic effect of benzodiazepines. Sedation can impair cognitive function in some patients, but assertions that benzodiazepines increase the risk of dementia are not supported by recent data. Contrary to popular opinion, benzodiazepines are not frequently misused or conduits to misuse of other substances in patients without substance use disorders who are prescribed these medications for appropriate indications; most benzodiazepine misuse involves medications that are obtained from other people. Benzodiazepines are usually not lethal in overdose except when ingested with other substances, especially alcohol and opioids. Benzodiazepines comprise one of the few classes of psychotropic medication the mechanisms of action of which are clearly delineated, allowing for greater precision in their clinical use. These medications, therefore, belong in the therapeutic armamentarium of the knowledgeable clinician.

Factors associated with potentially inappropriate opioid use in community-living older adults consulting in primary care

OBJECTIVE

To study the factors associated with opioid use and potentially inappropriate opioid use (PIOU) in primary care older adults with non-cancer pain referring to the conceptual framework developed by the American Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

METHODS

This is a secondary analysis of health survey and medico-administrative data from Québec, Canada. Individuals aged ≥65 were recruited between 2011 and 2013 in primary care clinics to participate in face-to-face interviews. The sample included 945 older adults without a malignant tumor over the study period or any tumor in the 2 years surrounding opioid use. Opioid use within a 3 year follow-up period was identified from the public drug plan database. Potentially inappropriate opioid use (PIOU) was defined using the American Geriatrics Society Beers 2019 list. Multinomial regression analyses were performed to study the factors (patient, pain, substance use, provider, healthcare system) associated with opioid use and PIOU.

RESULTS

In this sample of older adults, 26.2% used an opioid and 18.4% were categorized as PIOU. Factors associated with PIOU compared to opioid use included female sex, higher psychological distress, number of emergency department visits, and recruitment type of healthcare practice. Factors associated with PIOU compared to no use included female sex, country of origin, presence of a trauma, physical/psychiatric multimorbidity, number of outpatient consultations, pain severity/type, and number of prescribers.

CONCLUSIONS

Mental health and health system factors were associated with PIOU. Results highlights the importance of a multidisciplinary approach for pain management, and the urgent need for implementing organizational efforts to optimize opioid use in primary care.

Risk Prescriptions of Strong Opioids in the Treatment of Chronic Non-Cancer Pain by Primary Care Physicians in Catalonia: Opicat Padris Project

The prescription of strong opioids (SO) for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) is steadily increasing. This entails a high risk of adverse effects, a risk that increases with the concomitant prescription of SO with central nervous system depressant drugs and with the use of SO for non-recommended indications. In order to examine this concomitant risk prescription, we designed a descriptive, longitudinal, retrospective population-based study. Patients aged ≥15 years with a continued SO prescription for ≥3 months during 2013–2017 for CNCP were included. Of these, patients who had received concomitant prescriptions of SO and risk drugs (gabapentinoids, benzodiazepines and antidepressants) and those who had received immediate-release fentanyl (IRF) were selected. The study included 22,691 patients; 20,354 (89.7%) patients received concomitant risk prescriptions. Men and subjects with a higher socioeconomic status received fewer concomitant risk prescriptions. Benzodiazepines or Z-drugs were prescribed concomitantly with SO in 15,883 (70%) patients, antidepressants in 14,932 (65%) and gabapentinoids in 11,267 (49%), while 483 (21.32%) patients received IRF (2266 prescriptions in total) without a baseline SO. In conclusion, our study shows that a high percentage of patients prescribed SO for CNCP received concomitant prescriptions with known risks, as well as IRF for unauthorized indications.

Relationship Between Cardiovascular Disease Pathology and Fatal Opioid and Other Sedative Overdose: A Post-Mortem Investigation and Pilot Study

Introduction: In 2019, Scotland reported the highest number of drug deaths amongst EU countries. Of the 1,264 drug deaths reported in 2019, 94% were related to polysedative use. Studies have proposed a relationship between opioid use and cardiovascular disease. Furthermore, the concomitant use of sedatives and opioids has been associated with lethal cardiopulmonary events. However, evidence is still limited for the relationship between polysedative use and cardiovascular diseases. Thus, the present study aimed to investigate the association between polysedative use and the underlying cardiovascular pathologies in drug deaths.

Methods: This study consisted of a post-mortem investigation of 436 drug deaths. Data extracted from post-mortem reports included socio-demographic characteristics (e.g., gender, age), cardiovascular pathologies (e.g., atherosclerosis, atheroma, and inflammation), in addition to the presence of opioids (e.g. methadone, heroin) and other substances (e.g., alcohol, benzodiazepine) in the blood of the deceased. Stepwise multiple regression models were employed to identify which substances predicted cardiovascular pathologies.

Results: The presence of opioids, benzodiazepines, and alcohol in the blood of the deceased predicted overall cardiovascular disease (CVD) severity [R2 = 0.33, F (5, 430) = 39.64, p < 0.0001; adjusted R2 = 0.32, f2 = 0.49]. Positive Beta coefficients may indicate an exacerbation of CVD (B = 0.48 95% CI = 0.25, 0.70) due to the presence of opioids in the blood of the deceased. Negative associations may instead indicate a relative protective effect of alcohol (B = −0.2, 95% CI = −0.41, −0.00) and benzodiazepines (B = −0.29, 95% CI = −0.48, −0.09) on CVD.

Conclusion: These findings may inform national clinical guidelines on the need to monitor individuals who abuse opioids for presence of cardiovascular disease risk factors pathologies and provide timely interventions to reduce mortality in the population.