Variation in Abuse-Deterrent Formulation Opioid Prescribing in California, Florida, and Kentucky in 2018

Abuse-Deterrent Opioids: A Survey of Physician Beliefs, Behaviors, and Psychology

Objective

Evaluate beliefs and behaviors pertaining to abuse-deterrent opioids (ADFs).

Design

Survey in 2019 by invitation to all licensed physicians.

Setting

Commonwealth of Kentucky.

Participants

374 physicians.

Methods

Descriptive statistics, and hypothesis test that early adopter prescribers would have greater endorsement of opioid risk management.

Results

Of all prescribers, 55% believed all opioid analgesics should have ADF requirements (15% were unsure); 74% supported mandating insurance coverage. Only one-third considered whether an opioid was ADF when prescribing, motivated by patient family diversion (94%) and societal supply reduction (88%). About half believed ADFs were equally effective in preventing abuse by intact swallowing, injection, chewing, snorting, smoking routes. Only 4% of OxyContin prescribers chose it primarily because of ADF properties. Instead, the most common reason (33%) was being started by another prescriber. A quarter of physicians chose not to prescribe ADFs because of heroin switching potential. Early adopters strongly believed ADFs were effective in reducing abuse (PR 3.2; 95% CI 1.5, 6.6) compared to mainstream physicians. Early-adopter risk-management practices more often included tools increasing agency and measurement: urine drug screens (PR 2.0; 1.3, 3.1), risk screening (PR 1.3; 0.94, 1.9). While nearly all respondents (96%) felt that opioid abuse was a problem in the community, only 57% believed it was a problem among patients in their practice. Attribution theory revealed an externalization of opioid abuse problems that deflected blame from patients on to family members.

Conclusions

The primary motivator for prescribing ADFs was preventing diversion by family members, not patient-level abuse concerns.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40122-021-00343-z.

Inches, Centimeters, and Yards: Overlooked Definition Choices Inhibit Interpretation of Morphine Equivalence

OBJECTIVE

Morphine-standardized doses are used in clinical practice and research to account for molecular potency. Ninety milligrams of morphine equivalents (MME) per day are considered a "high dose" risk threshold in guidelines, laws, and by payers. Although ubiquitously cited, the "CDC definition" of daily MME lacks a clearly defined denominator. Our objective was to assess denominator-dependency on "high dose" classification across competing definitions.

METHODS

To identify definitional variants, we reviewed literature and electronic prescribing tools, yielding 4 unique definitions. Using Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs data (July to September 2018), we conducted a population-based cohort study of 3,916,461 patients receiving outpatient opioid analgesics in California (CA) and Florida (FL). The binary outcome was whether patients were deemed "high dose" (>90 MME/d) compared across 4 definitions. We calculated I2 for heterogeneity attributable to the definition.

RESULTS

Among 9,436,640 prescriptions, 42% overlapped, which led denominator definitions to impact daily MME values. Across definitions, average daily MME varied 3-fold (range: 17 to 52 [CA] and 23 to 65 mg [FL]). Across definitions, prevalence of "high dose" individuals ranged 5.9% to 14.2% (FL) and 3.5% to 10.3% (CA). Definitional variation alone would impact a hypothetical surveillance study trying to establish how much more "high dose" prescribing was present in FL than CA: from 39% to 84% more. Meta-analyses revealed strong heterogeneity (I2 range: 86% to 99%). In sensitivity analysis, including unit interval 90.0 to 90.9 increased "high dose" population fraction by 15%.

DISCUSSION

While 90 MME may have cautionary mnemonic benefits, without harmonization of calculation, its utility is limited. Comparison between studies using daily MME requires explicit attention to definitional variation.

Nonmedical Use of Xtampza® ER and Other Oxycodone Medications in Adults Evaluated for Substance Abuse Treatment: Real-World Data from the Addiction Severity Index-Multimedia Version (ASI-MV®)

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to evaluate real-world data related to past 30-day nonmedical use (NMU) and routes of administration of Xtampza^® ER and comparator oxycodone medications in the US as captured within the Addiction Severity Index-Multimedia Version^® (ASI-MV^®).

Methods

Data were collected from July 2016 through December 2019 from 647 centers located in 44 states using the ASI-MV, a clinical instrument used to evaluate substance use and treatment planning. Demographic characteristics were assessed using Pearson's chi-square test for categorical data and quarterly NMU rates were calculated. Distribution of route of administration was studied using a proportional reporting ratio (PRR) analysis.

Results

Of 192,810 assessments, 42,279 (21.9%) indicated past 30-day NMU of at least one prescription opioid, including Xtampza ER (N=73, 0.2%), other oxycodone ER (n=3802, 9.0%) and oxycodone IR (n=14,579, 34.5%). All quarterly Xtampza ER NMU rates per 100 ASI-MV assessments were significantly lower than those for other oxycodone ER and oxycodone IR. Overall, quarterly Xtampza ER NMU drug utilization adjusted rates were significantly lower than quarterly rates observed for other oxycodone ER NMU but not consistently significantly lower than oxycodone IR NMU. Although not all statistically significant, all ratios from the PRR analysis were less than 1.0, indicating that rates of use of any alternate route, any non-oral route, snorting, and injecting were higher for other oxycodone ER and oxycodone IR than for Xtampza ER.

Conclusion

Xtampza ER had significantly lower rates of NMU than other oxycodone ER products and oxycodone IR products, as well as significantly lower rates of non-oral NMU than oxycodone IR products, in a population of individuals seeking substance abuse treatment. Understanding risks associated with different opioid medications is important for prescribers as they manage risks of opioid misuse and abuse with effective pain therapy.