How Are Real-time Opioid Prescribing Cognitions by Emergency Providers Influenced by Reviewing the State Prescription Drug Monitoring Program?

Mapping the research addressing prescription drug monitoring programs: A scoping review

ISSUES

Prescription drug monitoring programs are a harm minimisation intervention and clinical decision support tool that address the public health concern surrounding prescription drug misuse. Given the large number of studies published to date and the ongoing implementation of these programs, it is important to map the literature and identify areas for further research to improve practice.

APPROACH

A scoping review was undertaken to identify the research on prescription drug monitoring programs published between January 2015 and April 2021.

KEY FINDINGS

A total of 153 citations were included in this scoping review. The majority of the studies originated from the USA and were quantitative. Results on program effectiveness are mixed and mainly examine their association with opioid-related outcomes. Unintended consequences are revealed in the literature and this review also highlights barriers to program use.

IMPLICATIONS

Overall, findings are mixed despite the large number of studies published to date. Mapping the literature identifies priority areas for further research that can advise policymakers and clinicians on practice improvement.

CONCLUSION

Results on prescription drug monitoring program effectiveness are mixed and mainly examine their association with opioid-related outcomes. This review highlights barriers to prescription drug monitoring program effectiveness related to program use and system integration. Further research is needed in these areas to improve prescription drug monitoring program use and patient outcomes.

Advances in prescription drug monitoring program research: a literature synthesis (June 2018 to December 2019)

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Nearly every U.S. state operates a prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) to monitor dispensing of controlled substances. These programs are often considered key policy levers in the ongoing polydrug epidemic. Recent years have seen rapid growth of peer-reviewed literature examining PDMP consultation and the impacts of these programs on diverse patient populations and health outcomes. This literature synthesis presents a review of studies published from June 2018 to December 2019 and provides relevant updates from the perspective of three researchers in this field.

RECENT FINDINGS

The analyzed studies were primarily distributed across three overarching research focus areas: outcome evaluations (n = 29 studies), user surveys (n = 23), and surveillance (n = 22). Identified themes included growing awareness of the unintended consequences of PDMPs on access to opioids, effects on benzodiazepines and stimulant prescribing, challenges with workflow integration across multiple specialties, and new opportunities for applied data science.

SUMMARY

There is a critical gap in existing PDMP literature assessing how these programs have impacted psychiatrists, their prescribing behaviors, and their patients. Although PDMPs have improved population-level monitoring of controlled substances from medical sources, their role in responding to a drug epidemic shifting to illicitly manufactured drugs is under scrutiny.

The Association of State Opioid Misuse Prevention Policies With Patient- and Provider-Related Outcomes: A Scoping Review

Policy Points This scoping review reveals a growing literature on the effects of certain state opioid misuse prevention policies, but persistent gaps in evidence on other prevalent state policies remain. Policymakers interested in reducing the volume and dosage of opioids prescribed and dispensed can consider adopting robust prescription drug monitoring programs with mandatory access provisions and drug supply management policies, such as prior authorization policies for high-risk prescription opioids. Further research should concentrate on potential unintended consequences of opioid misuse prevention policies, differential policy effects across populations, interventions that have not received sufficient evaluation (eg, Good Samaritan laws, naloxone access laws), and patient-related outcomes.

CONTEXT

In the midst of an opioid crisis in the United States, an influx of state opioid misuse prevention policies has provided new opportunities to generate evidence of policy effectiveness that can inform policy decisions. We conducted a scoping review to synthesize the available evidence on the effectiveness of US state interventions to improve patient and provider outcomes related to opioid misuse and addiction.

METHODS

We searched six online databases to identify evaluations of state opioid policies. Eligible studies examined legislative and administrative policy interventions that evaluated (a) prescribing and dispensing, (b) patient behavior, or (c) patient health.

FINDINGS

Seventy-one articles met our inclusion criteria, including 41 studies published between 2016 and 2018. These articles evaluated nine types of state policies targeting opioid misuse. While prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) have received considerable attention in the literature, far fewer studies addressed other types of state policy. Overall, evidence quality is very low for the majority of policies due to a small number of evaluations. Of interventions that have been the subject of considerable research, promising means of reducing the volume and dosages of opioids prescribed and dispensed include drug supply management policies and robust PDMPs. Due to low study number and quality, evidence is insufficient to draw conclusions regarding interventions targeting patient behavior and health outcomes, including naloxone access laws and Good Samaritan laws.

CONCLUSIONS

Recent research has improved the evidence base on several state interventions targeting opioid misuse. Specifically, moderate evidence suggests that drug supply management policies and robust PDMPs reduce opioid prescribing. Despite the increase in rigorous evaluations, evidence remains limited for the majority of policies, particularly those targeting patient health-related outcomes.