Search

Background: To determine if marijuana legalization was associated with reduced opioid mortality., Study Design: The United States (US) opioid mortality trend during the 2010-2019 decade was compared in states and District of Columbia (jurisdictions) that had implemented marijuana legalization with states that had not. Acceleration of opioid mortality during 2020, the first year of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, was also compared in recreational and medicinal-only legalizing jurisdictions., Methods: Joinpoint methodology was applied to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention WONDER data. Trends in legalizing jurisdictions were cumulative aggregates., Results: The overall opioid and fentanyl death rates and the percentage of opioid deaths due to fentanyl increased more during 2010-2019 in jurisdictions that legalized marijuana than in those that did not (pairwise comparison p = 0.007, 0.05, and 0.006, respectively). By 2019, the all-opioid and fentanyl death rates were 44 and 50 percent greater in the legalizing than in the nonlegalizing jurisdictions, respectively. When the COVID-19 pandemic hit in 2020, jurisdictions that implemented recreational marijuana legalization before 2019 had significantly greater increases in both overall opioid and fentanyl death rates than jurisdictions with medicinal-only legalization. For all-opioids, the mean (95 percent confidence interval) 2019-to-2020 increases were 46.5 percent (36.6, 56.3 percent) and 29.1 percent (20.2, 37.9 percent), respectively (p = 0.02). For fentanyl, they were 115.6 percent (80.2, 151.6 percent) and 55.4 percent (31.6, 79.2 percent), respectively (p = 0.01)., Conclusions: During the past decade, marijuana legalization in the US was associated at the jurisdiction level with a greater acceleration in opioid death rate. An even greater increase in opioid mortality occurred in recreational-legalizing jurisdictions with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Marijuana legalization is correlated with worsening of the US opioid epidemic.

We examine the association between opioid prescription patterns in privately insured adults and changes in state cannabis laws among five age groups (18-25, 26-35 36-45, 46-55 and 56-64 years). Using the 2016 Clinformatics Data Mart, a nationwide commercial health insurance database, we performed a cross-sectional analysis of two types of opioid prescribing (>30-day and >90-day prescriptions) among all adults aged 18-64 based on the stringency of cannabis laws. We found a significant interaction between age and cannabis law on opioid prescriptions. Age-stratified multilevel multivariable analyses showed lower opioid prescription rates in the four younger age groups only in states with medical cannabis laws, when considering both >30 day and >90 day opioid use [>30 day adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 0.56, in 18-25, aOR = 0.67 in 26-35, aOR = 0.67 in 36-45, and aOR = 0.76 in 46-54 years; >90 day aOR = 0.56, in 18-25, aOR = 0.68 in 26-35, aOR = 0.69 in 36-45, and aOR = 0.77 in 46-54 years, P < 0.0001 for all]. This association was not significant in the oldest age group of 55-64 years. There was no significant association between opioid prescriptions and other categories of cannabis laws (recreational use and decriminalization) in any of the age groups studied., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To determine the association of medical marijuana legalization with prescription opioid utilization., Methods: A 10% sample of a nationally representative database of commercially insured population was used to gather information on opioid use, chronic opioid use, and high-risk opioid use for the years 2006-2014. Adults with pharmacy and medical benefits for the entire calendar year were included in the population for that year. Multilevel logistic regression analysis, controlling for patient, person-year, and state-level factors, were used to determine the impact of medical marijuana legalization on the three opioid use measures. Sub-group analysis among cancer-free adults and cancer-free adults with at least one chronic non-cancer pain condition in the particular year were conducted. Alternate regression models were used to test the robustness of our results including a fixed effects model, an alternate definition for start date for medical marijuana legalization, a person-level analysis, and a falsification test., Results: The final sample included a total of 4,840,562 persons translating into 15,705,562 person years. Medical marijuana legalization was found to be associated with a lower odds of any opioid use: OR = 0.95 (0.94-0.96), chronic opioid use: OR = 0.93 (0.91-0.95), and high-risk opioid use: OR = 0.96 (0.94-0.98). The findings were similar in both the sub-group analyses and all the sensitivity analyses. The falsification tests showed no association between medical marijuana legalization and prescriptions for antihyperlipidemics (OR = 1.00; CI 0.99-1.01) or antihypertensives (OR = 1.00; CI 0.99-1.01)., Conclusions: In states where marijuana is available through medical channels, a modestly lower rate of opioid and high-risk opioid prescribing was observed. Policy makers could consider medical marijuana legalization as a tool that may modestly reduce chronic and high-risk opioid use. However, further research assessing risk versus benefits of medical marijuana legalization and head to head comparisons of marijuana versus opioids for pain management is required.

Objectives: Medical marijuana use may substitute prescription opioid use, whereas nonmedical marijuana use may be a risk factor of prescription opioid misuse. This study examined the associations between recreational marijuana legalization and prescription opioids received by Medicaid enrollees., Methods: State-level quarterly prescription drug utilization records for Medicaid enrollees during 2010-2017 were obtained from Medicaid State Drug Utilization Data. The primary outcome, opioid prescriptions received, was measured in three population-adjusted variables: number of opioid prescriptions, total doses of opioid prescriptions in morphine milligram equivalents, and related Medicaid spending, per quarter per 100 enrollees. Two difference-in-difference models were used to test the associations: eight states and DC that legalized recreational marijuana during the study period were first compared among themselves, then compared to six states with medical marijuana legalized before the study period. Schedule II and III opioids were analyzed separately., Results: In models comparing eight states and DC, legalization was not associated with Schedule II opioid outcomes; having recreational marijuana legalization effective in 2015 was associated with reductions in number of prescriptions, total doses, and spending of Schedule III opioids by 32% (95% CI: (-49%, -15%), p = 0.003), 30% ((-55%, -4.4%), p = 0.027), and 31% ((-59%, -3.6%), p = 0.031), respectively. In models comparing eight states and DC to six states with medical marijuana legalization, recreational marijuana legalization was not associated with any opioid outcome., Conclusions: No evidence suggested that recreational marijuana legalization increased prescription opioids received by Medicaid enrollees. There was some evidence in some states for reduced Schedule III opioids following the legalization., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Pre-clinical research supports that cannabinoids reduce opioid dose requirements, but few studies have tested this in humans. This review evaluates ecological and epidemiological studies that have been cited as evidence that medical cannabis use may reduce opioid use and opioid-related harms. Medline and Embase were searched for relevant articles. Data were extracted on study setting, analyses approach, covariates, and outcomes. Eleven ecological and 14 epidemiological studies were found. In ecological studies, states that allow medical cannabis laws have reported a slower rate of increase in opioid overdose deaths compared with states without such laws. These differences have increased over time and persisted after controlling for state sociodemographic characteristics and use of prescription monitoring programmes. Few studies have controlled for other potential confounders such as opioid dependence treatment and imprisonment rates. Some epidemiological studies provide evidence that cannabis availability may reduce opioid use, but are limited by selection bias, cross-sectional designs, and self-reported assessments of the opioid-sparing effects of cannabis. Some epidemiological and ecological studies suggest that cannabis may reduce opioid use and harms, although important methodological weaknesses were identified. Well-designed clinical studies may provide more conclusive evidence on whether cannabinoids can reduce opioid use and related harm.

The 114th Congress (2014-2016) has received recent attention for the high number of legislative bills directed to the public health crisis in prescription opioid abuse. The US government does not have a single source for determining public policy; however, the people expect that there will be some level of efficiency and coordination between federal and state leaders to improve the nation's health. A search of the National Library of Congress database to analyze legislative bills introduced between 1973 and 2016 and which contain the term "opioid" identified 127 bills that characterize consistency and coordination with other governmental efforts in prescription opioid abuse. Despite the recent number of introduced bills, there does not appear to be a close coordination between Congress and Federal Administrative agencies regarding this crisis.

Rising mortality rates, increased opioid prescription abuse, and a perceived need to provide practitioners with structured guidance in opioid prescribing have prompted the Washington State Legislature to establish new legal standards of practice regarding chronic non-cancer pain management. Clinicians are required to conduct a detailed physical examination and health history prior to treatment. Risk assessments for abuse and detailed periodic reviews of treatment are required at least every 6 months. Those considered "high risk" or who have significant psychiatric comorbidities will be required to sign and follow a written agreement or pain contract, obtain their pain prescriptions from a single provider, and submit to biological drug screening. Unless an exemption exists, patients prescribed > 120 mg of morphine-equivalents daily, considered severe pain nonresponders, necessitating dosage escalation, diagnosed with multifaceted mental health-related comorbidities, demonstrating diagnostic ambiguity, and/or requiring significant treatment individualization are referred to a pain specialist. Episodic care settings should refrain from supplying opioids to chronic pain patients whenever possible. The ER is for Emergencies coalition instituted the Seven Best Practices program throughout the state to reduce unnecessary visits, coordinate prescribing practice, reduce Medicaid expenditures, and improve overall patient care. The state reported approximately $33.65 million in savings in 2013 through the use of these practices and converting Medicaid participants from fee-for-service to managed care plans. Similar legislation to complement clinical practice guidelines is expected to be enacted in other states. It is vital that practitioners comprehend the new guidelines and make appropriate adjustments in their opioid prescribing habits., (© 2015 World Institute of Pain.)

In June, 2012 the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) developed a "blueprint" for prescriber education as a means of directing Certified Medical Education (CME) activities that included content which would meet the regulatory requirements of the class-wide, longacting/ extended-release (LA-ER) opioid Risk Evaluation Mitigation Strategies (REMS). Within the blueprint is the suggested adoption of Patient-Provider Agreements (PPAs) to be used in association with opioid prescribing, but, to our knowledge, there have been no reported evaluations of the role played by opioid-agent PPAs in clinical practice, or of the perceptions of this regulatory mandate by clinicians. Therefore, we conducted a survey regarding PPA perceptions by opioid prescribers that was posted for five weeks on a well-trafficked online CME service provider (Medscape). Of the 1,232 respondents (reflecting a 99.5% completion rate), 52.4% treat acute or chronic pain with opioids. The survey identified an improvement of opioid safe-use education (21% of respondents) as the most frequently selected beneficial element of PPAs. Conversely, the challenges to adoption included time constraints (21% of physicians) as well as lack of evidence that PPAs will reduce drug misuse, and the lack of a uniform, patient-friendly PPA. Based on our survey, clinicians consider the PPA of potential value, but data regarding the utility of such an instrument are lacking.

Importance: Opioid analgesic overdose mortality continues to rise in the United States, driven by increases in prescribing for chronic pain. Because chronic pain is a major indication for medical cannabis, laws that establish access to medical cannabis may change overdose mortality related to opioid analgesics in states that have enacted them., Objective: To determine the association between the presence of state medical cannabis laws and opioid analgesic overdose mortality., Design, Setting, and Participants: A time-series analysis was conducted of medical cannabis laws and state-level death certificate data in the United States from 1999 to 2010; all 50 states were included., Exposures: Presence of a law establishing a medical cannabis program in the state., Main Outcomes and Measures: Age-adjusted opioid analgesic overdose death rate per 100 000 population in each state. Regression models were developed including state and year fixed effects, the presence of 3 different policies regarding opioid analgesics, and the state-specific unemployment rate., Results: Three states (California, Oregon, and Washington) had medical cannabis laws effective prior to 1999. Ten states (Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Rhode Island, and Vermont) enacted medical cannabis laws between 1999 and 2010. States with medical cannabis laws had a 24.8% lower mean annual opioid overdose mortality rate (95% CI, -37.5% to -9.5%; P = .003) compared with states without medical cannabis laws. Examination of the association between medical cannabis laws and opioid analgesic overdose mortality in each year after implementation of the law showed that such laws were associated with a lower rate of overdose mortality that generally strengthened over time: year 1 (-19.9%; 95% CI, -30.6% to -7.7%; P = .002), year 2 (-25.2%; 95% CI, -40.6% to -5.9%; P = .01), year 3 (-23.6%; 95% CI, -41.1% to -1.0%; P = .04), year 4 (-20.2%; 95% CI, -33.6% to -4.0%; P = .02), year 5 (-33.7%; 95% CI, -50.9% to -10.4%; P = .008), and year 6 (-33.3%; 95% CI, -44.7% to -19.6%; P < .001). In secondary analyses, the findings remained similar., Conclusions and Relevance: Medical cannabis laws are associated with significantly lower state-level opioid overdose mortality rates. Further investigation is required to determine how medical cannabis laws may interact with policies aimed at preventing opioid analgesic overdose.

In India, a million people with cancer and an unknown number of people with other incurable and disabling diseases, need opioids for pain relief. Only about 0.4% of the population in need have access to them. Major barriers to access to opioids are complicated regulations and problems related to attitude and knowledge regarding pain relief and opioids among professionals and the public. The Pain and Policy Studies Group at Madison Wisconsin has been collaborating with many Indian palliative care workers and government officials to improve availability of opioids to those who need them for pain relief. As a result of this collaborative effort, the Government of India asked all state governments to modify the narcotic regulations following a model given to them. To facilitate the process, the collaboration has conducted workshops in 13 states in association with local champions. Currently, 13 states in India and one union territory have simplified regulations, but opioid availability has improved only in a minority of these states. Establishment of simple standard operating procedures to implement the simplified regulations, advocacy, and improved education of professionals are essential for further improvement of the situation. The past decade has demonstrated that government policy can be changed if palliative care enthusiasts work in tandem with the government. The progress has been slow, but real and encouraging.

In a recent press release Joseph A. Califano, Jr., Chairman and President of the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University called for a major shift in American attitudes about substance abuse and addiction and a top to bottom overhaul in the nation's healthcare, criminal justice, social service, and eduction systems to curtail the rise in illegal drug use and other substance abuse. Califano, in 2005, also noted that while America has been congratulating itself on curbing increases in alcohol and illicit drug use and in the decline in teen smoking, abuse and addition of controlled prescription drugs-opioids, central nervous system depressants and stimulants-have been stealthily, but sharply rising. All the statistics continue to show that prescription drug abuse is escalating with increasing emergency department visits and unintentional deaths due to prescription controlled substances. While the problem of drug prescriptions for controlled substances continues to soar, so are the arguments of undertreatment of pain. The present state of affairs show that there were 6.4 million or 2.6% Americans using prescription-type psychotherapeutic drugs nonmedically in the past month. Of these, 4.7 million used pain relievers. Current nonmedical use of prescription-type drugs among young adults aged 18-25 increased from 5.4% in 2002 to 6.3% in 2005. The past year, nonmedical use of psychotherapeutic drugs has increased to 6.2% in the population of 12 years or older with 15.172 million persons, second only to marijuana use and three times the use of cocaine. Parallel to opioid supply and nonmedical prescription drug use, the epidemic of medical drug use is also escalating with Americans using 80% of world's supply of all opioids and 99% of hydrocodone. Opioids are used extensively despite a lack of evidence of their effectiveness in improving pain or functional status with potential side effects of hyperalgesia, negative hormonal and immune effects, addiction and abuse. The multiple reasons for continued escalation of prescription drug abuse and overuse are lack of education among all segments including physicians, pharmacists, and the public; ineffective and incoherent prescription monitoring programs with lack of funding for a national prescription monitoring program NASPER; and a reactive approach on behalf of numerous agencies. This review focuses on the problem of prescription drug abuse with a discussion of facts and fallacies, along with proposed solutions.