Search

Background: Policy evaluations and health system interventions often utilize International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes of opioid use, dependence, and abuse to identify individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) and assess receipt of evidence-based treatments. However, ICD codes may not map directly onto the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder (DSM-5) OUD criteria. This study investigates the positive predictive value of ICD codes in identifying patients with OUD.Methods: We conducted a clinical chart review on a national sample of 520 Veterans assigned ICD-9 or ICD-10 codes for opioid use, dependence, or abuse from 2012 to 2017. We extracted evidence of DSM-5 OUD criteria and opioid misuse from clinical documentation in the month preceding and three months following initial ICD code listing, and categorized patients into: 1) high likelihood of OUD, 2) limited aberrant opioid use, 3) prescribed opioid use without evidence of aberrant use, and 4) insufficient information. Positive predictive value was calculated as the percentage of individuals with these ICD codes meeting high likelihood of OUD criteria upon chart review.Results: Only 57.7 % of patients were categorized as high likelihood of OUD; 16.5 % were categorized as limited aberrant opioid use, 18.9 % prescribed opioid use without evidence of aberrant use, and 6.9 % insufficient information.Conclusions: Patients assigned ICD codes for opioid use, dependence, or abuse often lack documentation of meeting OUD criteria. Many receive long-term opioid therapy for chronic pain without evidence of misuse. Robust methods of identifying individuals with OUD are crucial to improving access to clinically appropriate treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Since 2010, heroin-related overdoses have risen sharply, coinciding with policies to restrict access to prescription opioids. It is unknown if patients tapered or discontinued off prescription opioids transitioned to riskier heroin use. This study examined opioid prescribing, including long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) and discontinuation, prior to heroin overdose.Methods: We used retrospective longitudinal data from a national claims database to identify adults with an emergency or inpatient claim for heroin overdose between January 2010 and June 2017. Receipt of opioid prescription, LTOT episodes, and discontinuation of LTOT were measured for the period of one year prior to heroin overdose.Results: We identified 3183 individuals (53.2% age 18-25; 70.0% male) with a heroin overdose (incidence rate 4.20 per 100k person years). Nearly half (42.3%) received an opioid prescription in the prior 12 months, and 10.9% had an active opioid prescription in the week prior to overdose. LTOT at any time in the 12 months prior to overdose was uncommon (12.8%) among those with heroin overdoses, especially among individuals 18-25 years old (3.5%, P < 0.001). LTOT discontinuation prior to overdose was also relatively uncommon, experienced by 6.7% of individuals aged 46 and over and 2.5% of individuals aged 18-25 years (P < 0.001).Conclusions: Prior to heroin overdose, prescription opioid use was common, but LTOT discontinuation was uncommon and observed primarily in older individuals with the lowest heroin overdose rates. Further study is needed to determine if these prescribing patterns are associated with increased heroin overdose. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The loosening of U.S. methadone regulations during the COVID-19 pandemic expanded calls for methadone reform. This study examines professional perceptions of methadone take-home dose regulation before and during the COVID-19 pandemic to understand responses to varied methadone distribution policies.Methods: Fifty-nine substance use disorder treatment professionals were interviewed between 2017 and 2020 in-person or over video call. An inductive iterative coding process was used to analyze the data. Constructivist grounded theory guided the collection and analysis of in-depth interviews.Results: Treatment professionals expressed mixed views toward methadone take-home regulations. Participants justified regulation using several arguments: 1) patient care benefitting from supervision, 2) attributing improved patient safety to take-home regulation, 3) fearing liability for methadone-related harms, and 4) relying on buprenorphine as an "escape hatch" for patients who cannot manage MMT policies. Other professionals suggested partial deregulation, while others strongly opposed pre-pandemic take-home regulation, explaining such regulations impede medication access and hinder patient-centered care. Some professionals supported the COVID-19 policy changes and saw these as a test run for broader deregulation, while others framed the changes as temporary and cautiously applied deregulation to their services, at times revoking looser rules for patients they perceived as nonadherent.Conclusion: Treatment professionals working in a range of modalities, including opioid treatment programs, expressed hesitation toward expanded take-home methadone access. While some participants also supported forms of deregulation, post-pandemic efforts to extend looser methadone distribution policies will have to address apprehensive professionals if such policy changes are to be meaningfully adopted in community services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Efforts to address opioid-involved overdose fatalities have led to widespread implementation of various initiatives to taper (i.e., reduce or discontinue) opioid prescriptions despite a limited understanding of patients' experience.Methods: From 2019-2020, we recruited patients with chronic, non-cancer pain who had undergone a reduction in opioid daily dosage of ≥50 % in the past two years at Boston Medical Center or Michigan Medicine. Participants completed semi-structured interviews exploring health history, opioid use, and taper experiences. Inductive analysis, guided by theoretical conceptualizations of structural stigma, identified emergent themes.Results: Among 41 participants, three elements of structural stigma were identified across participants' lives. First, participants identified themselves as overlooked subjects of the U.S. opioid crisis, who experienced overprescribing, subsequent stigmatization and surveillance of opioid use (e.g., toxicology screening, "pill counts"), and various tapering initiatives. Second, during the course of pain treatment, participants felt stigmatized and invalidated by cultural norms linking chronic pain to stereotypes of acting disingenuously (e.g., "drug-seeking"). Finally, during and after tapers, institutional policies and programs further increased participants' feelings of marginalization, producing multiple unintended consequences, including reduced access to medical care and feeling "orphaned by the system."Conclusions: Opioid tapers may exacerbate the social production and burden of stigma among patients with chronic pain, especially when processes are perceived to invalidate pain, endorse stereotypes, and label previously effective, acceptable treatment as inappropriate. Findings highlight how various tapering initiatives reinforce the devalued status of people living with chronic pain while also reducing patients' wellbeing and confidence in medical systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]