Search

Objective   Back pain is one of the most common pain syndromes in the United States, but there has been limited recent description of the role of emergency departments (EDs) in caring for patients with back pain. We investigated trends in the evaluation and management of back pain in U.S. EDs from 2007 to 2016. Methods   We performed a retrospective analysis of the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, a nationally representative annual survey of ED visits, which includes data on patient-, hospital-, and visit-level characteristics. We evaluated trends among adult ED visits for back pain, including demographics, resource utilization, and disposition. Trends were assessed through the use of survey-weighted analyses. Results   Visit rates as a proportion of overall ED visits were stable from 2007 to 2016 (9.1% [95% confidence interval (CI): 8.5–9.6] vs. 9.3% [95% CI: 8.6–10.0]; P  = 0.44). Admission rates declined from 6.4% (95% CI: 5.1–8.0) to 5.0% (95% CI: 3.5–6.9; P  < 0.001). Imaging utilization increased from 51.7% (95% CI: 49.3–54.1) to 57.6% (95% CI: 53.3–61.7; P  = 0.023), with an increase of 58.3% in computed tomography. Overall opioid utilization declined from 53.5% (95% CI: 49.4–57.5) to 46.5% (95% CI: 43.2–49.8; P  < 0.001). Tramadol use increased over the study period (4.1% [95% CI: 3.0–5.8] vs. 8.4% [95% CI: 6.6–10.7]; P  < 0.001). Conclusions   Opioid utilization during ED visits for back pain decreased from 2007 to 2016, whereas tramadol use more than doubled. Care intensity increased significantly despite declining admission rates. Further research into optimal strategies for back pain management in the ED is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background We quantified opioid prescribing after the 2014 rescheduling of hydrocodone from schedule III to II in the United States using a state-wide prescription database and studied trends three years before and after the policy change, focusing on certain specialties. Methods We used Ohio's state prescription drug monitoring program database, which includes all filled schedule II and III prescriptions regardless of payer or pharmacy, to conduct an interrupted time series analysis of the nine most prescribed opioids: hydrocodone, oxycodone, tramadol, codeine, and others. We analyzed hydrocodone prescribing trends for the physician specialties of internal medicine, anesthesiology, and emergency medicine. We evaluated trends 37 months before and after the rescheduling change. Results Rescheduling was associated with a hydrocodone level change of –26,358 (95% confidence interval [CI] = –36,700 to –16,016) prescriptions (–5.8%) and an additional decrease in prescriptions of –1,568 (95% CI = –2,296 to –839) per month (–0.8%). Codeine prescribing temporarily increased, at a level change of 6,304 (95% CI = 3,003 to 9,606) prescriptions (18.5%), indicating a substitution effect. Hydrocodone prescriptions by specialty were associated with a level change of –805 (95% CI = –1,280 to –330) prescriptions (–8.5%) for anesthesiologists and a level change of –14,619 (95% CI = –23,710 to –5,528) prescriptions (–10.2%) for internists. There was no effect on prescriptions by emergency physicians. Conclusions The 2014 federal rescheduling of hydrocodone was associated with declines in hydrocodone prescriptions in Ohio beyond what had already been occurring, and hydrocodone may have been briefly substituted with codeine. These results indicate that rescheduling did have a lasting effect but affected prescribing specialties variably. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective Many states have begun implementing enhancements to PDMP patient profiles such as summaries or graphics to highlight issues of concern and enhance comprehension. The purpose of this study was to examine how physicians respond to sample enhanced PDMP profiles based on patient vignettes. Design Brief semistructured interviews with physicians. Setting Three national medical conferences for targeted specialties. Subjects Ninety-three physicians practicing in primary care, emergency medicine, or pain management. Methods We presented participants with one of three patient vignettes with corresponding standard and enhanced PDMP profiles and conducted brief interviews. Results Findings indicated that enhanced profiles could increase ease of comprehension, reduce time burden, and aid in communicating with patients about opioid risks. Physicians also expressed concern about liability for prescribing when the enhanced profile indicates risk and cautioned against any implication that risk warnings should override clinical judgment based on the patient's complete medical history or presenting condition. Physicians emphasized the need for transparency of measures and evidence of validation of risk scores. We found little indication that enhanced profiles would change opioid prescribing decisions, though decisions varied by physician. Conclusions Our study underscores the importance of involving prescribers in developing and testing PDMP profile enhancements, as well as providing guidance in the interpretation and clinical use of enhanced profiles. Reduced time burden is an important benefit to consider as the number of states mandating PDMP use increases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. The current US opioid epidemic is attributed to the large volume of prescribed opioids. This study analyzed the contribution of different medical specialties to overall opioids by evaluating the pill counts and morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) of opioid prescriptions, stratified by provider specialty, and determined temporal trends. Methods. This was an analysis of the Ohio prescription drug monitoring program database, which captures scheduled medication prescriptions filled in the state as well as prescriber specialty. We extracted prescriptions for pill versions of opioids written in the calendar years 2010 to 2014. The main outcomes were the number of filled prescriptions, pill counts, MMEs, and extended-released opioids written by physicians in each specialty, and annual prescribing trends. Results. There were 56,873,719 prescriptions for the studied opioids dispensed, for which 41,959,581 (73.8%) had prescriber specialty type available. Mean number of pills per prescription and MMEs were highest for physical medicine/rehabilitation (PM&R; 91.2 pills, 1,532mg, N51,680,579), anesthesiology/pain (89.3 pills, 1,484mg, N53,261,449), hematology/oncology (88.2 pills, 1,534mg, N5516,596), and neurology (84.4 pills, 1,230 mg, N5573,389). Family medicine (21.8%) and internal medicine (17.6%) wrote the most opioid prescriptions overall. Time trends in the average number of pills and MMEs per prescription also varied depending on specialty. Conclusions. The numbers of pills and MMEs per opioid prescription vary markedly by prescriber specialty, as do trends in prescribing characteristics. Pill count and MME values define each specialty's contribution to overall opioid prescribing more accurately than the number of prescriptions alone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]