Search

Objective: (1) Describe short and long‐term opioid prescribing patterns and variation after common otolaryngologic procedures and (2) assess risk factors for chronic opioid use in this cohort. Study Design: Retrospective cohort. Setting: Optum's deidentified Integrated Claims‐Clinical data set. Methods: An adult cohort of patients undergoing common otolaryngology procedures from 2010 to 2017 was identified. Associations between procedure and other covariates with any initial opioid prescription and continuous opioid prescriptions were assessed with multivariable modeling. Opioid use was defined as continuous if a new prescription was filled within 30 days of the previous prescription. A time‐to‐event analysis assessed continuous prescriptions from the index procedure to end of the last continuous opioid prescription. Results: Among a cohort of 19,819 patients undergoing predominately laryngoscopy procedures (12,721, 64.2%), 2585 (13.0%) received an opioid prescription with variation in receiving a prescription, daily dose, and total initially prescribed dose varying by procedure, patient demographics, provider characteristics, and facility type. Opioids were prescribed most frequently after tonsillectomy (45.4%) and least frequently after laryngoscopy with interventions (3.9%), which persisted in the multivariable models. Overall rates of continuous use at 180 and 360 days were 0.48% and 0.27%, respectively. Among patients receiving an initial opioid prescription, maintaining continuous prescriptions was associated with tonsillectomy procedures, age (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 0.997 per year, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.993‐0.999), opioid prescriptions 6 months preprocedure (aHR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.37‐0.47), and nonotolaryngology initial prescribers (aHRs: <1, P <.05). Conclusion: There is substantial variation in initial prescribing practices and continuous opioid prescriptions after common Otolaryngology procedures, but the overall rate of maintaining a continuous prescription starting after these procedures is very low. Level of Evidence: Level 3. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) have been widely adopted as a tool to address the prescription opioid epidemic in the United States. PDMP integration and mandatory use policies are 2 approaches states have implemented to increase use of PDMPs by prescribers. While the effectiveness of these approaches is mixed, it is unclear what factors motivated states to implement them. This study examines whether opioid dispensing, adverse health outcomes, or other non–health-related factors motivated implementation of these PDMP approaches. Methods Time-to-event analysis was performed using lagged state-year covariates to reflect values from the year prior. Extended Cox regression estimated the association of states' rates of opioid dispensing, prescription opioid overdose deaths, and neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome with implementation of PDMP integration and mandatory use policies from 2009 to 2020, controlling for demographic and economic factors, state government and political factors, and prior opioid policies. Results In our main model, prior opioid dispensing (HR 2.31, 95% CI 1.17, 4.57), neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome hospitalizations (HR 1.55, 95% CI 1.09, 2.19), and number of prior opioid policies (HR 2.13, 95% CI 1.13, 4.00) were associated with mandatory use policies. Prior prescription opioid overdose deaths (HR 1.21, 95% CI 1.08, 1.35) were also associated with mandatory use policies in a model that did not include opioid dispensing or neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome. No study variables were associated with implementation of PDMP integration. Conclusion Understanding state-level factors associated with implementing PDMP approaches can provide insights into factors that motivate the adoption of future public health interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Practice guidelines recommend nonpharmacologic and nonopioid therapies as first-line pain treatment for acute pain. However, little is known about their utilization generally and among individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) for whom opioid and other pharmacologic therapies carry greater risk of harm. Objective: To determine the association between a pre-existing OUD diagnosis and treatment of acute low back pain (aLBP). Design: Retrospective cohort study using 2016–2019 Medicare data. Participants: Fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries with a new episode of aLBP. Main Measures: The main independent variable was OUD diagnosis measured prior to the first LBP claim (i.e., index date). Using multivariable logistic regressions, we assessed the following outcomes measured within 30 days of the index date: (1) nonpharmacologic therapies (physical therapy and/or chiropractic care), and (2) prescription opioids. Among opioid recipients, we further assessed opioid dose and co-prescription of gabapentin. Analyses were conducted overall and stratified by receipt of physical therapy, chiropractic care, opioid fills, or gabapentin fills during the 6 months before the index date. Key Results: We identified 1,263,188 beneficiaries with aLBP, of whom 3.0% had OUD. Two-thirds (65.8%) did not receive pain treatments of interest at baseline. Overall, nonpharmacologic therapy receipt was less prevalent and opioid and nonopioid pharmacologic therapies were more common among beneficiaries with OUD than those without OUD. Beneficiaries with OUD had lower odds of receiving nonpharmacologic therapies (aOR = 0.62, 99%CI = 0.58–0.65) and higher odds of prescription opioid receipt (aOR = 2.24, 99%CI = 2.17–2.32). OUD also was significantly associated with increased odds of opioid doses ≥ 90 morphine milligram equivalents/day (aOR = 2.43, 99%CI = 2.30–2.56) and co-prescription of gabapentin (aOR = 1.15, 99%CI = 1.09–1.22). Similar associations were observed in stratified groups though magnitudes differed. Conclusions: Medicare beneficiaries with aLBP and OUD underutilized nonpharmacologic pain therapies and commonly received opioids at high doses and with gabapentin. Complementing the promulgation of practice guidelines with implementation science could improve the uptake of evidence-based nonpharmacologic therapies for aLBP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: In response to the opioid epidemic, a multitude of policy and clinical-guideline based interventions were launched to combat physician overprescribing. However, the sudden rise of the Covid-19 pandemic disrupted all aspects of healthcare delivery. The purpose of this study was to evaluate how opioid prescribing patterns changed during the Covid-19 pandemic within a large multispecialty orthopedic practice. Materials and methods: A retrospective review of 1,048,559 patient encounters from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2022 at a single orthopedic practice was performed. Primary outcomes were the percent of encounters with opioids prescribed and total morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) per opioid prescription. Differences in outcomes were assessed by calendar year. Encounters were then divided into two groups: pre-Covid (1/1/2019-2/29/2020) and Covid (3/1/2020-12/31/2022). Univariate analyses were used to evaluate differences in diagnoses and outcomes between periods. Multivariate analysis was performed to assess changes in outcomes during Covid after controlling for differences in diagnoses. Statistical significance was assessed at p < 0.05. Results: The percentage of encounters with opioids prescribed decreased from a high of 4.0% in 2015 to a low of 1.6% in 2021 and 2022 (p < 0.001). MMEs per prescription decreased from 283.6 ± 213.2 in 2015 to a low of 138.6 ± 100.4 in 2019 (p < 0.001). After adjusting for diagnoses, no significant differences in either opioid prescribing rates (post-COVID OR = 0.997, p = 0.893) or MMEs (post-COVID β = 2.726, p = 0.206) were observed between the pre- and post-COVID periods. Conclusion: During the Covid-19 pandemic opioid prescribing levels remained below historical averages. While continued efforts are needed to minimize opioid overprescribing, it appears that the significant progress made toward this goal was not lost during the pandemic era. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) was developed as a way to standardize clinical care pathways and communication across multidisciplinary teams to improve patient recovery and reduce hospital length of stay (LOS). Our objective was to implement an ERAS protocol for cesarean delivery (ERAS-CD) and evaluate its efficacy in reducing LOS. Study Design An ERAS-CD program was implemented at our institution in October 2018. Patients undergoing scheduled and unscheduled CD were maintained on an ERAS pathway of care, which included preoperative hydration, standardized intraoperative protocols, and postoperative analgesic regimens as well as early feeding, urinary catheter removal, and ambulation. We compared LOS after delivery (calculated from time of delivery to discharge), readmission rates, health care disparities and postoperative opioid prescribing practices before (October 2017–September 2018) and after (November 2018–October 2019) ERAS implementation. We excluded any outliers, defined as a LOS >25 days. Continuous data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation. Student's t -test and Chi-square were used for statistical comparison with p <0.05 considered statistically significant. Results There were 1,729 patients who had a CD in the pre-ERAS group with a mean LOS after delivery of 3.32 ± 6.19 days. In the post-ERAS group, 1,753 women underwent CD with a mean LOS after delivery of 2.85 ± 5.79 days, a statistically significant difference from the pre-ERAS group (p <0.001). There was no difference in readmission rates between pre- and post-ERAS implementation groups (1.9 vs. 2.2%, p = 0.53). There was a reduction in health care disparities in postoperative LOS, when stratifying by race-ethnicity, and a reduction in opioid prescribing practices after the implementation of the program. Conclusion With the implementation of an ERAS-CD program, we achieved a reduced LOS, without increasing readmission rates, and saw a reduction in health care disparities and opioid dispensing. A shorter LOS could offer an enhanced patient experience, as well as improved and equitable perioperative outcomes. Key Points ERAS-CD is associated with a reduction in postoperative hospital length of stay. A reduction in health care disparities by race-ethnicity was observed with the implementation of ERAS-CD. A reduction in opioid dispensing was observed with the implementation of ERAS-CD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: In drug studies, research designs requiring no prior exposure to certain drug classes may restrict important populations. Since abuse‐deterrent formulations (ADF) of opioids are routinely prescribed after other opioids, choice of study design, identification of appropriate comparators, and addressing confounding by "indication" are important considerations in ADF post‐marketing studies. Methods: In a retrospective cohort study using claims data (2006–2018) from a North Carolina private insurer [NC claims] and Merative MarketScan [MarketScan], we identified patients (18–64 years old) initiating ADF or non‐ADF extended‐release/long‐acting (ER/LA) opioids. We compared patient characteristics and described opioid treatment history between treatment groups, classifying patients as traditional (no opioid claims during prior six‐month washout period) or prevalent new users. Results: We identified 8415 (NC claims) and 147 978 (MarketScan) ADF, and 10 114 (NC claims) and 232 028 (MarketScan) non‐ADF ER/LA opioid initiators. Most had prior opioid exposure (ranging 64%–74%), and key clinical differences included higher prevalence of recent acute or chronic pain and surgery among patients initiating ADFs compared to non‐ADF ER/LA initiators. Concurrent immediate‐release opioid prescriptions at initiation were more common in prevalent new users than traditional new users. Conclusions: Careful consideration of the study design, comparator choice, and confounding by "indication" is crucial when examining ADF opioid use‐related outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: This study aimed to evaluate whether voluntary and mandatory prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) use in Victoria, Australia, had an impact on prescribing behaviour, focusing on individual patients' prescribed opioid doses and transition to prescribing of nonmonitored medications. Methods: This was a retrospective cross‐sectional study using routinely collected primary healthcare data. A 90‐day moving average prescribed opioid dose in oral morphine equivalents was used to estimate opioid dosage. A Markov transition matrix was used to describe how patients prescribed medications transitioned between opioid dose groups and other nonopioid treatment options during 3 transition periods: transition between 2 control periods prior to PDMP implementation (T1 to T2); during the voluntary PDMP implementation (T2 to T3); and during mandatory PDMP implementation (T3 to T4). Results: Among patients prescribed opioids in our study, we noted an increased probability of transitioning to not being prescribed opioids during the mandatory PDMP period (T3 to T4). This increase was attributed mainly to the ceasing of low‐dose opioid prescribing. Membership in an opioid dose group remained relatively stable for most patients who were prescribed high opioid doses. For those who were only prescribed nonmonitored medications initially, the probability of being prescribed opioids increased during the mandatory PDMP when compared to other transition periods. Conclusion: The introduction of PDMP mandates appeared to have an impact on the prescribing for patients who were prescribed low‐dose opioids, while its impact on individuals prescribed higher opioid doses was comparatively limited. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The objective of this study is to characterize opioid intensity in the intensive care unit (ICU) and its association with opioid utilization across care transitions. Methods: This is a prospective cohort study. Medically ill ICU patients with complete medication histories who survived to discharge were included. Opioid intensity was characterized based on IV morphine milligram equivalents (IV MME). Primary outcomes were opioid prescribing upon ICU and hospital discharge. Results: Opioids were prescribed to 34.1% and 31.1% of patients upon ICU and hospital discharge. Within the ≥50 mean IV MME/ICU day cohort, 64.7% of patients received opioids after ICU discharge compared to 45.8% and 13.6% in the 1-49 mean IV MME/ICU day and no opioid groups (P <.05). Within the ≥50 mean IV MME/ICU day cohort, 70.6% of patients were prescribed opioids after hospitalization compared to 37.3% and 13.6% of patients who received less or no opioids. (P <.05). Within the ≥50 mean IV MME/ICU day cohort, 29.4% of patients were opioid naïve and discharged with an opioid, which is over double compared to patients with lower opioid requirements (P <.05). Conclusion: Patients with higher mean daily ICU opioid requirements had increased opioid prescribing across care transitions despite preadmission opioid use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Providers across the country have significantly decreased opioid prescribing over the past decade to prevent opioid misuse. The COVID-19 pandemic led to a disruption of the healthcare system and changes in the relationships between patients and providers. Consequently, we sought to investigate whether the pandemic had any impact on analgesic prescribing in an urban emergency department. This was a retrospective, single center study analyzing pharmacy records of patients that were treated with analgesics between January 2019 and May 2021. The most common analgesics utilized were tallied by month. Utilization of specific analgesics were compared between T1-pre-COVID-19 (1/2019–1/2020) and T2-post-COVID 19 (5/2020–5/2021). Analgesics were also categorized into broader categories (such as IV, oral, opioid, and non-opioid) and compared. Comparisons were analyzed using the t-test, Mann-Whitney u test, or chi-squared difference of proportions tests, as applicable. There were significant decreases in the amount of IV (7.2% vs. 6.5; p = 0.039) and oral opioid (2.6% vs. 2.1%; p = 0.001) administered during COVID-19. There were also decreases in the percent of patients given opioids (T1: 6.7 vs. T2: 4.6, p < 0.001). During COVID, there was an increase in the amount of non-opioid analgesics given per patient (p = 0.013). Particularly, there was an increase in the amount of oral non-opioid administrations per patient (p = 0.005). There was a decrease in utilization of ibuprofen between the two time periods (p < 0.001). Despite the pandemic, providers continued to decrease opioid prescribing and increase non-opioid prescribing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose The purpose of this review is to discuss important considerations when prescribing buprenorphine for opioid use disorder (OUD) in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting, recognizing the challenges of providing detailed recommendations in the setting of limited available evidence. Summary Buprenorphine is a partial mu-opioid receptor agonist that is likely to be increasingly prescribed for OUD in the ICU setting due to the relaxation of prescribing regulations. The pharmacology and pharmacokinetics of buprenorphine are complicated by the availability of several formulations that can be given by different administration routes. There is no single optimal dosing strategy for buprenorphine induction, with regimens ranging from very low-dose to high dose regimens. Faster induction with higher doses of buprenorphine has been studied and is frequently utilized in the emergency department. In patients admitted to the ICU who were receiving opioids either medically or illicitly, analgesia will not occur until their baseline opioid requirements are covered when their preadmission opioid is either reversed or interrupted. For patients in the ICU who are not on buprenorphine at the time of admission but have possible OUD, there are no validated tools to diagnose OUD or the severity of opioid withdrawal in critically ill patients unable to provide the subjective components of instruments validated in outpatient settings. When prescribing buprenorphine in the ICU, important issues to consider include dosing, monitoring, pain management, use of adjunctive medications, and considerations to transition to outpatient therapy. Ideally, addiction and pain management specialists would be available when buprenorphine is prescribed for critically ill patients. Conclusion There are unique challenges when prescribing buprenorphine for OUD in critically ill patients, regardless of whether they were receiving buprenorphine when admitted to the ICU setting for OUD or are under consideration for buprenorphine initiation. There is a critical need for more research in this area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prescription opioids, including those prescribed after surgery, have greatly contributed to the US opioid epidemic. Educating opioid prescribers is a crucial component of ensuring the safe use of opioids among surgical patients. An annual opioid prescribing education curriculum was implemented among new surgical prescribers at our institution between 2017 and 2022. The curriculum includes a single 75-min session which is comprised of several components: pain medications (dosing, indications, and contraindications); patients at high risk for uncontrolled pain and/or opioid misuse or abuse; patient monitoring and care plans; and state and federal regulations. Participants were asked to complete an opioid knowledge assessment before and after the didactic session. Presession and postsession assessments were completed by 197 (89.6%) prescribers. Across the five studied years, the median presession score was 54.5%. This increased to 63.6% after completion of the curriculum, representing a median relative knowledge increase of 18.2%. The median relative improvement was greatest for preinterns and interns (18.2% for both groups); smaller improvements were observed for postgraduate year 2-5 residents (9.1%) and advanced practice providers (9.1%). On a scale of 1 to 10 (with 5 being comfortable), median (interquartile range) self-reported comfort in prescribing opioids increased from 3 (2-5) before education to 5 (4-6) after education (P < 0.001). Each year, the curriculum substantially improved provider knowledge of and comfort in opioid prescribing. Despite increased national awareness of the opioid epidemic and increasing institutional initiatives to improve opioid prescribing practices, there was a sustained knowledge and comfort gap among new surgical prescribers. The observed effects of our opioid education curriculum highlight the value of a simple and efficient educational initiative. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2022, the CDC released an updated clinical practice guideline for prescribing opioids and managing pain in the outpatient setting. Th is article synthesizes the guideline recommendations and implementation considerations for clinical NP practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patients prescribed higher opioid dosages have a higher risk of persistent opioid use, overdose, and death. There is a lack of standardization for opioid prescribing for acute surgical pain in emergency general surgery (EGS) patients. We hypothesized that implementing a guideline to standardize opioid prescribing would be associated with a decrease in prescribing at hospital discharge for EGS patients without increasing additional postdischarge refills. This was a quasi-experimental study evaluating opioid prescribing by EGS providers before and after the implementation of a prescribing guideline. Patients were assigned to preguideline and postguideline groups based on admission date surrounding the implementation of the guideline. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients receiving an opioid prescription for ≥50 Morphine Milligram Equivalents (MME) per day on hospital discharge. There were 227 patients in the preguideline group and 226 patients in the postguideline group. After guideline implementation, median total MME prescribed decreased from 113 (interquartile range = 75) to 75 (interquartile range = 75, P = 0.03). The proportion of patients receiving a prescription for daily MME ≥50 also decreased from 75% to 25% (P ≤0.01). There were no increases in requested refills (17% versus 16%, P = 0.72) or received refills (14% versus 14%, P = 0.98). Guideline compliance ranged from 75% in ventral hernia repair patients to 94% in laparoscopic cholecystectomy patients. A departmental guideline to standardize postoperative opioid prescriptions was associated with a decrease in the amount of MMEs prescribed to EGS patients without an increase in requested or received refills. • Standardizing opioid prescribing for emergency general surgery patients. • Guideline for opioid prescribing for emergency general surgery patients. • Decreasing postoperative opioid prescribing in emergency general surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Opioid prescribing varies widely, and prescribed opioid dosages for an individual can fluctuate over time. Patterns in daily opioid dosage among patients prescribed long-term opioid therapy have not been previously examined. This study uses a novel application of time-series cluster analysis to characterize and visualize daily opioid dosage trajectories and associated demographic characteristics of patients newly initiated on long-term opioid therapy. We used 2018 to 2019 data from the IQVIA Longitudinal Prescription (LRx) all-payer pharmacy database, which covers 92% of retail pharmacy prescriptions dispensed in the United States. We identified a cohort of 277,967 patients newly initiated on long-term opioid therapy during 2018. Patients were stratified into 4 categories based on their mean daily dosage during a 90-day baseline period (<50, 50-89, 90-149, and ≥150 morphine milligram equivalent [MME]) and followed for a 270-day follow-up period. Time-series cluster analysis identified 2 clusters for each of the 3 baseline dosage categories <150 MME and 3 clusters for the baseline dosage category ≥150 MME. One cluster in each baseline dosage category comprised opioid dosage trajectories with decreases in dosage at the end of the follow-up period (80.7%, 98.7%, 98.7%, and 99.0%, respectively), discontinuation (58.5%, 80.0%, 79.3%, and 81.7%, respectively), and rapid tapering (50.8%, 85.8%, 87.5%, and 92.9%, respectively). These findings indicate multiple clusters of patients newly initiated on long-term opioid therapy who experience discontinuation and rapid tapering and highlight potential areas for clinician training to advance evidence-based guideline-concordant opioid prescribing, including strategies to minimize sudden dosage changes, discontinuation, or rapid tapering, and the importance of shared decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In many academic centers, opioid prescribing is managed primarily by residents with little or no formal opioid education. The present study evaluates intern knowledge and comfort with appropriate opioid prescribing 7 months after an organized opioid education effort. Materials and Methods: A repeat knowledge and attitude survey was sent to surgical interns who had completed an initial opioid education training session 7 months before the study. Results were compared to post-education assessment results in the same cohort. Setting: 16 general surgery and podiatric surgery interns at a single academic medical center. Results: The mean percentage of correct answers on follow-up was 67.6% identical to the average post-session score of 67.6%. Interns reported comfort with opioid prescribing increased to a mean score of 5.9 (out of 10) on follow-up compared to post-session score of 5.19. Conclusions: Surgical interns have significant gaps in knowledge for optimal prescribing and management of opioid prescriptions. Targeted education demonstrates significant and lasting improvement in opioid assessment scores, but there remains room for improvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Narratives are effective tools for communicating with patients about opioid prescribing for acute pain and improving patient satisfaction with pain management. It remains unclear, however, whether specific narrative elements may be particularly effective at influencing patient perspectives. This study was a secondary analysis of data collected for Life STORRIED, a multicenter RCT. Participants included 433 patients between 18 and 70 years-old presenting to the emergency department (ED) with renal colic or musculoskeletal back pain. Participants were instructed to view one or more narrative videos during their ED visit in which a patient storyteller discussed their experiences with opioids. We examined associations between exposure to individual narrative features and patients' 1) preference for opioids, 2) recall of opioid-related risks and 3) perspectives about the care they received. Participants were more likely to watch videos featuring storytellers who shared their race or gender. We found that participants who watched videos that contained specific narrative elements, for example mention of prescribed opioids, were more likely to recall having received information about pain treatment options on the day after discharge (86.3% versus 72.9%, p = 0.02). Participants who watched a video that discussed family history of addiction reported more participation in their treatment decision than those who did not (7.6 versus 6.8 on a ten-point scale, p = 0.04). Participants preferentially view narratives featuring storytellers who share their race or gender. Narrative elements were not meaningfully associated with patient-centered outcomes. These findings have implications for the design of narrative communication tools. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: After decades of liberal opioid prescribing, multiple efforts have been made to reduce reliance upon opioids in clinical care. Little is known about the effects of opioid prescribing policies on outcomes beyond opioid prescribing. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the combined effects of multiple opioid prescribing policies implemented in a safety-net primary care clinic in San Francisco, CA, in 2013-2014. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study and conditional difference-in-differences analysis of nonrandomized clinic-level policies. PATIENTS: 273 patients prescribed opioids for chronic non-cancer pain in 2013 at either the treated (n=151) or control clinic (n=122) recruited and interviewed in 2017-2018. INTERVENTIONS: Policies establishing standard protocols for dispensing opioid refills and conducting urine toxicology testing, and a new committee facilitating opioid treatment decisions for complex patient cases. MAIN MEASURES: Opioid prescription (active prescription, mean dose in morphine milligram equivalents [MME]) from electronic medical charts, and heroin and opioid analgesics not prescribed to the patient (any use, use frequency) from a retrospective interview. KEY RESULTS: The interventions were associated with a reduction in mean prescribed opioid dose in the first three post-policy years (year 1 conditional difference-in-differences estimate: -52.0 MME [95% confidence interval: -109.9, -10.6]; year 2: -106.2 MME [-195.0, -34.6]; year 3: -98.6 MME [-198.7, -23.9]; year 4: -72.6 MME [-160.4, 3.6]). Estimates suggest a possible positive association between the interventions and non-prescribed opioid analgesic use (year 3: 5.2 absolute percentage points [-0.1, 11.2]) and use frequency (year 3: 0.21 ordinal frequency scale points [0.00, 0.47]) in the third post-policy year. CONCLUSIONS: Clinic-level opioid prescribing policies were associated with reduced dose, although the control clinic achieved similar reductions by the fourth post-policy year, and the policies may have been associated with increased non-prescribed opioid analgesic use. Clinicians should balance the urgency to reduce opioid prescribing with potential harms from rapid change.

Abstract Objective To examine opioid prescribing practices for pain in older adults with and without Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementias (ADRD). Methods This cross-sectional study used National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey data (2014–2016, and 2018). Adults aged ≥ 50 years with pain were analyzed. Prescribing of opioid and concomitant sedative prescriptions (including benzodiazepines, Z-drugs, and barbiturates) were identified by the Multum lexicon code. Multivariable logistic regression evaluated the risk of opioid prescribing or co-prescribing of opioid and sedative associated with ADRD in older adults with pain. Results There were 13,299 office visits in older adults with pain, representing 451.75 million visits. Opioid prescribing occurred in 27.19%; 30% involved co-prescribing of opioids and sedatives. ADRD was not associated with opioid prescribing or co-prescribing of opioid and sedative therapy. Conclusions Opioid and sedatives are commonly prescribed in older adults with pain. Longitudinal studies need to understand the etiology and chronicity of opioid use in older patients, specifically with ADRD.

ABSTRACTBackground Balance between benefits and harms of using opioids for the management of chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) must be carefully considered on a case-by-case basis. There is no one-size-fits-all approach that can be executed by prescribers and clinicians when considering this therapy.Aim The aim of this study was to identify barriers and facilitators for prescribing opioids for CNCP through a systematic review of qualitative literature.Methods Six databases were searched from inception to June 2019 for qualitative studies reporting on provider knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, or practices pertaining to prescribing opioids for CNCP in North America. Data were extracted, risk of bias was rated, and confidence in evidence was graded.Results Twenty-seven studies reporting data from 599 health care providers were included. Ten themes emerged that influenced clinical decision making when prescribing opioids. Providers were more comfortable to prescribe opioids when (1) patients were actively engaged in pain self-management, (2) clear institutional prescribing policies were present and prescription drug monitoring programs were used, (3) long-standing relationships and strong therapeutic alliance were present, and (4) interprofessional supports were available. Factors that reduced likelihood of prescribing opioids included (1) uncertainty toward subjectivity of pain and efficacy of opioids, (2) concern for the patient (e.g., adverse effects) and community (i.e., diversion), (3) previous negative experiences (e.g., receiving threats), (4) difficulty enacting guidelines, and (5) organizational barriers (e.g., insufficient appointment duration and lengthy documentation).Conclusions Understanding barriers and facilitators that influence opioid-prescribing practices offers insight into modifiable targets for interventions that can support providers in delivering care consistent with practice guidelines.

Introduction: To date, there is limited literature to guide emergency providers (EPs) on the proper dosing of prescription opioids. Our study aims to assess the self-reported opioid use, storage, and disposal practices of patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with acute pain. Methods: This prospective cohort study employed a validated, cross-sectional survey of subjects identified using electronic medical records. The survey link was e-mailed to a continuous sample of eligible participants 3–4 weeks following ED discharge. Nonrespondents were surveyed through telephone after 1 week. We used descriptive and nonparametric statistics to report survey results. Results: Of 500 eligible subjects, 97 completed the questionnaire. Only 28% of respondents reported that they took all of the prescribed pills. Of the remaining responses, 20% stated that they did not take any pills, 33% took about one-fourth, 7.2% took about half, and 12.4% took about three-fourths of the pills. Among those who did not take any pills, 42% filled the prescription. Most (71.2%) reported storing their leftover pills; among those who stored their pills, less than one-fourth (23.8%) used a locked storage location. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that less than one-third of patients who receive prescriptions in the ED for acute pain use all of their prescribed pills, suggesting that many patients are unnecessarily prescribed opioids for acute conditions. The findings of this study also suggest that many patients with unused prescription opioids do not practice safe storage or proper disposal of leftover pills. This represents a potential opportunity for EPs to improve medication safety by educating patients on proper storage and disposal practices. Limitations include low response rate and the use of self-reporting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previous research linking opioid prescribing to adverse drug events has failed to properly account for the time-varying nature of opioid exposure. This study aimed to explore how the risk of opioid-related emergency department visits, readmissions, or deaths (composite outcome) varies with opioid dose and duration, comparing different novel modeling techniques. A prospective cohort of 1,511 hospitalized patients discharged from 2 McGill-affiliated hospitals in Montreal, 2014–2016, was followed from the first postdischarge opioid dispensation until 1 year after discharge. Marginal structural Cox proportional hazards models and their flexible extensions were used to explore the association between time-varying opioid use and the composite outcome. Weighted cumulative exposure models assessed cumulative effects of past use and explored how its impact depends on the recency of exposure. The patient mean age was 69.6 (standard deviation = 14.9) years; 57.7% were male. In marginal structural model analyses, current opioid use was associated with a 71% increase in the hazard of opioid-related adverse events (adjusted hazard ratio = 1.71, 95% confidence interval: 1.21, 2.43). The weighted cumulative exposure results suggested that the risk cumulates over the previous 50 days of opioid consumption. Flexible modeling techniques helped assess how the risk of opioid-related adverse events may be associated with time-varying opioid exposures while accounting for nonlinear relationships and the recency of past use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundEfforts 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.MethodsFrom 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.ResultsAmong 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."ConclusionsOpioid 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.

Purpose: Physician burnout is generally associated with worse clinical outcomes. The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of physician burnout on the quality of physicians’ pain assessment and opioid prescribing for patients with advanced lung cancer. Moreover, we test whether these relationships are moderated by patient-level factors, such as patient race and activation level, that have a demonstrated impact on clinical encounters. Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of data from a multisite randomized field experiment. From 2012 to 2016, 96 primary care physicians and oncologists who treated solid tumors were recruited from hospitals and medical sites in three small metropolitan and rural areas in the USA. Physicians saw two unannounced standardized patients who presented with advanced lung cancer. Standardized patients varied across race (Black or White) and activation level (activated, typical). Visits were audio recorded and transcribed. Pain management was evaluated by the quality of pain assessment and opioid prescribing during these visits. Results: Mixed-effects linear regression and generalized mixed-effects modeling showed that higher levels of burnout were associated with a greater likelihood of prescribing an opioid and prescribing stronger opioid doses for patients. These effects were not moderated by patient race or activation level. Conclusion: Findings from this work inform our understanding of physician-level factors that impact clinical decision-making in the context of cancer pain management. Specifically, this study identifies the role of physician burnout on the quality of prescribing for patients with advanced lung cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To examine opioid prescribing practices for pain in older adults with and without Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias (ADRD). Methods: This cross-sectional study used National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey data (2014–2016, and 2018). Adults aged ≥ 50 years with pain were analyzed. Prescribing of opioid and concomitant sedative prescriptions (including benzodiazepines, Z-drugs, and barbiturates) were identified by the Multum lexicon code. Multivariable logistic regression evaluated the risk of opioid prescribing or co-prescribing of opioid and sedative associated with ADRD in older adults with pain. Results: There were 13,299 office visits in older adults with pain, representing 451.75 million visits. Opioid prescribing occurred in 27.19%; 30% involved co-prescribing of opioids and sedatives. ADRD was not associated with opioid prescribing or co-prescribing of opioid and sedative therapy. Conclusions: Opioid and sedatives are commonly prescribed in older adults with pain. Longitudinal studies need to understand the etiology and chronicity of opioid use in older patients, specifically with ADRD. Highlights: This national study examined the opioid prescribing practices for pain in older adults with and without Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias (ADRD). The study found about 30% of visits for older adults with pain resulted in opioid prescriptions, and the co-prescribing of sedatives were noted in 30% of these visits made by older adults with pain where an opioid were prescribed. No significant difference exists between ADRD vs. non-ADRD groups in receiving opioid prescriptions or co-prescription of opioids and sedatives among the visits with pain. Future research should aim to understand the health outcomes associated with opioid prescribing and concomitant receipt of sedatives in ADRD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Prescription opioids were a major initial driver of the opioid crisis. States have attempted to reduce overprescribing by enacting policies that limit opioid prescriptions, but the impacts of such policies on new prescribing and subsequent transitions to long-term use are not fully understood. Objective: To examine the association of implementation of a state prescribing limits policy with opioid prescribing and transitions to long-term opioid use. Design: Interrupted time series analyses assessing trends in new opioid prescriptions and long-term use before and after policy implementation. Patients: A total of 130,591 New Jersey Medicaid enrollees ages 18–64 who received an initial opioid prescription from January 2014 to December 2019. Interventions: New Jersey's opioid prescribing limit policy implemented in March 2017. Main Measures: Total new opioid prescriptions, percentage of new prescriptions with >5 days' supply, and transition to long-term opioid use, defined as having opioid supply on day 90 after the initial prescription. Key Results: Policy implementation was associated with a significant monthly increase in new opioid prescriptions of 0.86 per 10,000 enrollees, halving the pre-policy decline in the prescribing rate. Among new opioid prescriptions, the percentage with >5 days' supply decreased by about 1 percentage point (−0.76 percentage points, 95% CI −0.89, −0.62) following policy implementation. However, policy implementation was associated with a significant monthly increase in the rate of initial prescriptions with supply on day 90 (9.95 per 10,000 new prescriptions, 95% CI 4.80, 15.11) that reversed the downward pre-implementation trend. Conclusions: The New Jersey policy was associated with a reduction in initial prescriptions with >5 days' supply, but not with an overall decline in new opioid prescriptions or in the rate at which initial prescriptions led to long-term use. Given their only modest benefits, policymakers and clinicians should carefully weigh potential unintended consequences of strict prescribing limits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The emergency department (ED) often represents the first exposure orthopedic trauma patients have to prescription opioids and thus a critical opportunity for prevention of potential long-term opioid use. This study will analyze the impact of opioid prescribing patterns among both ED providers and orthopedic surgery residents on the utilization of opioids during routine orthopedic trauma manipulations. Materials and methods: This retrospective study reviewed opioid utilization among patients with an ankle or distal radius fracture at a large, urban, level 1 trauma center. Data on clinical providers, patient demographics, and injury severity score (ISS) were collected. Total opioid use was reported in oral morphine milligram equivalents (MME). Regression analyses were performed to determine how provider opioid prescribing intensity affected administered MME. Results: Five-hundred and ninety-five patients were included. The mean MME administered was 40.84 (SD 30.0) and was inversely associated with ISS (R = −.05; P =.40). Patients treated by a high-intensity ED prescriber had approximately three times higher odds of receiving over 40.84 MME (OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.33-5.90 P =.07). For those with an ISS score less than 15, the presence of a low-intensity orthopedic resident decreased the odds of receiving over 40.84 MME from 2.25 to 1.78 in the presence of a high-intensity ED prescriber. Conclusion: For isolated orthopedic manipulations in the ED, involvement of a low-intensity prescribing orthopedic resident significantly decreased the quantity of opioids administered for those with lower ISS injuries, thus effectively mitigating the effect of high-intensity prescribing behavior prescriber. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ObjectivePrevious research has suggested caution about opioid analgesic usage in the emergency department (ED) setting and raised concerns about variations in prescription opioid analgesic usage, both across institutions and for whom they are prescribed. We examined opioid analgesic usage in ED patients with suspected urolithiasis across fifteen participating hospitals.MethodsThis is a secondary analysis of a clinical trial including adult ED patients with suspected urolithiasis. In multilevel models accounting for clustering by hospital, we assessed demographic, clinical, state-level, and hospital-level factors associated with opioid analgesic administration during the ED visit and prescription at discharge.ResultsOf 2352 participants, 67% received an opioid analgesic during the ED visit and 61% were prescribed one at discharge. Opioid analgesic usage varied greatly across hospitals, ranging from 46% to 88% (during visit) and 34% to 85% (at discharge). Hispanic patients were less likely than non-Hispanic white patients to receive opioid analgesics during the ED visit (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.55-0.94). Patients with higher education (OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.05-1.59), health insurance coverage (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.02-1.60), or receiving care in states with a prescription drug monitoring program (OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.06-2.53) were more likely to receive an opioid analgesic prescription at ED discharge.ConclusionWe found marked hospital-level differences in opioid analgesic administration and prescribing, as well as associations with education, healthcare insurance, and race/ethnicity groups. These data might compel clinicians and hospitals to examine their opioid use practices to ensure it is congruent with accepted medical practice.

Introduction: To date, there is limited literature to guide emergency providers (EPs) on the proper dosing of prescription opioids. Our study aims to assess the self-reported opioid use, storage, and disposal practices of patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with acute pain. Methods: This prospective cohort study employed a validated, cross-sectional survey of subjects identified using electronic medical records. The survey link was e-mailed to a continuous sample of eligible participants 3–4 weeks following ED discharge. Nonrespondents were surveyed through telephone after 1 week. We used descriptive and nonparametric statistics to report survey results. Results: Of 500 eligible subjects, 97 completed the questionnaire. Only 28% of respondents reported that they took all of the prescribed pills. Of the remaining responses, 20% stated that they did not take any pills, 33% took about one-fourth, 7.2% took about half, and 12.4% took about three-fourths of the pills. Among those who did not take any pills, 42% filled the prescription. Most (71.2%) reported storing their leftover pills; among those who stored their pills, less than one-fourth (23.8%) used a locked storage location. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that less than one-third of patients who receive prescriptions in the ED for acute pain use all of their prescribed pills, suggesting that many patients are unnecessarily prescribed opioids for acute conditions. The findings of this study also suggest that many patients with unused prescription opioids do not practice safe storage or proper disposal of leftover pills. This represents a potential opportunity for EPs to improve medication safety by educating patients on proper storage and disposal practices. Limitations include low response rate and the use of self-reporting.

Objective: In this study, we explored which postoperative opioid prescribing practices were associated with persistent opioid use among adolescents and young adults. Background: Approximately 5% of adolescents and young adults develop postoperative new persistent opioid use. The impact of physician prescribing practices on persistent use among young patients is unknown. Methods: We identified opioid-naïve patients aged 13 to 21 who underwent 1 of 13 procedures (2008–2016) and filled a perioperative opioid prescription using commercial insurance claims (Optum Deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart Database). Persistent use was defined as ≥ 1 opioid prescription fill 91 to 180 days after surgery. High-risk opioid prescribing included overlapping opioid prescriptions, co-prescribed benzodiazepines, high daily prescribed dosage, long-acting formulations, and multiple prescribers. Logistic regression modeled persistent use as a function of exposure to high-risk prescribing, adjusted for patient demographics, procedure, and comorbidities. Results: High-risk opioid prescribing practices increased from 34.9% to 43.5% over the study period; the largest increase was in co-prescribed benzodiazepines (24.1%–33.4%). High-risk opioid prescribing was associated with persistent use (aOR 1.235 [1.12,1.36]). Receipt of prescriptions from multiple opioid prescribers was individually associated with persistent use (aOR 1.288 [1.16,1.44]). The majority of opioid prescriptions to patients with persistent use beyond the postoperative period were from nonsurgical prescribers (79.6%). Conclusions: High-risk opioid prescribing practices, particularly receiving prescriptions from multiple prescribers across specialties, were associated with a significant increase in adolescent and young adult patients' risk of persistent opioid use. Prescription drug monitoring programs may help identify young patients at risk of persistent opioid use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite widespread adoption of state prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs), it is unclear how often PDMPs are accessed through an electronic health record system (EHR-PDMP integration), or whether efforts to make PDMPs easier to access and use have improved their utility. Objective: To produce national-level estimates on the use of PDMPs among office-based physicians and benefits associated with their use. Design: We use nationally representative survey data to produce descriptive statistics on PDMP use and associated benefits among office-based physicians in the USA. Participants: 1398 office-based physicians who prescribe controlled substances. Main Measures: We examined physician-reported ease and frequency of PDMP use, and how EHR-PDMP integration affects frequency and ease of use. Multivariate models were used to assess whether characteristics of PDMP use were related to physician-reported benefits such as reduced prescribing of controlled substances and perceived improvements in clinical decision-making. Key Results: In 2019, two-thirds of office-based physicians in the USA reported frequent use of their state PDMP and over three-quarters reported they were easy to use. Both frequency and ease of use were positively correlated with PDMP integration status. Respondents who frequently checked their state's PDMP were 8.7 percentage points (95% CI −.4 to 17.8) more likely to report perceived benefits and reported 2.2 (95% CI 1.54 to 2.83) more benefits. Respondents who indicated their PDMP was easy to use were 12.7 percentage points (95% CI.040 to.214) more likely to report perceived benefits and reported 0.94 (95% CI 0.26 to 1.61) more benefits. Conclusions: Our findings suggest efforts to make PDMPs easier to access and use aided physicians in making informed clinical decisions that may not be captured by reduced prescribing alone. Efforts to further increase frequency and ease of use—including advancing a standards-based approach to PDMP and EHR data interoperability—may further increase the benefit of PDMPs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE The process and outcomes of delivering medical care for chronic low back pain might affect patient satisfaction. We aimed to determine the associations of process and outcomes with patient satisfaction. METHODS We conducted a cross-sectional study of patient satisfaction among adult participants with chronic low back pain in a national pain research registry using self-reported measures of physician communication, physician empathy, current physician opioid prescribing for low back pain, and outcomes pertaining to pain intensity, physical function, and health-related quality of life. We used simple and multiple linear regression models to measure factors associated with patient satisfaction, including a subgroup of participants having both chronic low back pain and the same treating physician for >5 years. RESULTS Among 1,352 participants, only physician empathy (standardized β, 0.638; 95% CI, 0.588-0.688; t = 25.14; P < .001) and physician communication (standardized β, 0.182; 95% CI, 0.133-0.232; t = 7.22; P < .001) were associated with patient satisfaction in the multivariable analysis that controlled for potential confounders. Similarly, in the subgroup of 355 participants, physician empathy (standardized β, 0.633; 95% CI, 0.529-0.737; t = 11.95; P < .001) and physician communication (standardized β, 0.208; 95% CI, 0.105-0.311; t = 3.96; P < .001) remained associated with patient satisfaction in the multivariable analysis. CONCLUSIONS Process measures, notably physician empathy and physician communication, were strongly associated with patient satisfaction with medical care for chronic low back pain. Our findings support the view that patients with chronic pain highly value physicians who are empathic and who make efforts to more clearly communicate treatment plans and expectations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Postoperative opioid prescribing has historically lacked information critical to balancing the pain control needs of the individual patient with our professional responsibility to judiciously prescribe these high-risk medications. This data evaluates pain control, satisfaction with pain control, and opioid utilization among patients undergoing isolated mid-urethral sling (MUS) randomized to one of two different opioid prescribing regimens. This study was registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04277975). Women undergoing isolated MUS by a Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery physician at a Penn State Health hospital from June 1, 2020 to November 22, 2021 were offered enrollment into this prospective, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority clinical trial. Participants gave informed consent and were enrolled by a member of the study team. Allocation was concealed to patient and study personnel until randomization on the day of surgery. Preoperatively, all participants completed baseline demographic and pain surveys including CSI-9, PCS, and Likert pain score (scale 0-10). Participants were randomized to either receive a standard prescription of ten 5 mg tablets oxycodone provided preoperatively (standard) or opioid prescription provided only upon patient request postoperatively (restricted). Randomization was performed by the study team surgeon using the REDCap randomization module on the day of surgery.Following MUS, subjects completed a daily diary for 1 week, i.e., postoperative day (POD) 0 through 7. Within the dairy, subjects provided the following information: average daily pain score, opioid use and amount of opioid utilized, other forms of pain management, satisfaction with pain control, perception of the amount of opioid prescribed, and need for pain management hospital/clinic visits. The online Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) was queried for all patients to determine if prescriptions for opioids were filled during the postoperative period. The primary outcome was average postoperative day 1 pain score and an a priori determined margin of non-inferiority was set at 2 points. Secondary outcomes included whether subject filled an opioid prescription (indicated by the online PDMP), opioid use (yes/no), satisfaction with pain control (on a scale of 1= “much worse” to 5= “much better” than expected), and how subjects felt about the amount of opioid prescribed (on a scale of 1=“prescribed far more” to 3=“prescribed the right amount” to 5=“prescribed far less” opioid than needed). 82 participants underwent isolated MUS placement and met inclusion criteria; 40 were randomized to the standard arm and 42 to the restricted group. Within this manuscript, we detail the data obtained from this randomized clinical trial and the methods utilized.

Introduction: Opioid abuse has reached epidemic proportions in the United States. Patients often present to the emergency department (ED) with painful conditions seeking analgesic relief. While there is known variability in the prescribing behaviors of emergency physicians, it is unknown if there are differences in these behaviors based on training level or by resident specialty.Methods: This is a retrospective chart review of ED visits from a single, tertiary-care academic hospital over a single academic year (2014-2015), examining the amount of opioid pain medication prescribed. We compared morphine milligram equivalents (MME) between provider specialty and level of training (emergency medicine [EM] attending physicians, EM residents in training, and non-EM residents in training).Results: We reviewed 55,999 total ED visits, of which 4,431 (7.9%) resulted in discharge with a prescription opioid medication. Residents in a non-EM training program prescribed higher amounts of opioid medication (108 MME, interquartile ratio [IQR] 75-150) than EM attendings (90 MME, lQR 75-120), who prescribed more than residents in an EM training program (75 MME, IQR 60-113) (p

Abstract Background Prescribed opioid doses > 100 mg oral morphine equivalent (OME) and/or co-prescribing of sedating psychoactive medications increase the risk of unintentional fatal overdose. We describe general practice encounters where opioids are prescribed and examine high-risk opioid prescribing. Methods The 2006–2016 BEACH study data, a rolling national cross-sectional survey of randomly selected GPs, was analysed. Results Opioid prescribing increased 2006–2007 to 2015–2016, however, this plateaued across the latter half-decade. From 2012–2016 3,897 GPs recorded 389,700 encounters and at least one opioid was prescribed at 5.2%. Opioid encounters more likely involved males, those 45–64 years, concession card holders and the socioeconomically disadvantaged. GPs more likely to prescribe opioids were 55 years or older, male, Australian graduates, and in regional and remote areas. The most common problems managed with opioids involved chronic non-cancer pain. One-in-ten opioid prescribing episodes involved high-risk doses and 11% involved co-prescription of sedating psychoactive medications. Over one-third of GPs provided other (non-pharmacological) interventions at encounters with opioid prescriptions. Conclusions Only 5% of GP encounters involved an opioid prescription. Of concern, were: prescribing for chronic non-cancer pain, potentially high-risk opioid encounters where > 100 OME daily dose was prescribed, and/or there was co-prescription of sedating psychoactive medication. However, approximately one-in-three opioid prescribing encounters involved non-pharmacological interventions.

Opioid misuse represents a major public health issue in the United States. One driver is overprescription for acute pain, with the size of initial prescription associated with subsequent long-term use. However, little work has been done to elicit clinician feedback about interventions to reduce opioid prescribing. To address this knowledge gap, qualitative analyses were conducted with clinicians who participated in a randomized controlled trial in which clinicians received monthly emailed feedback notifications about their opioid prescribing behaviors. Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted (N = 12) with urgent care (N = 7) and emergency department (N = 5) clinicians who participated in the trial between November 2020 and April 2021. Clinicians appreciated feedback about their prescribing behavior and found comparative data with peer clinicians to be most useful. Sharing opioid prescribing feedback data with clinicians can be an acceptable way to address opioid prescribing among emergency and urgent care clinicians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Assessing opioid prescription patterns is key to understanding the opioid crisis. Some researchers have suggested that work and workplace issues are not adequately represented in efforts to reduce the opioid crisis. This paper addresses this concern by comparing opioid prescription patterns of occupational injury-caused conditions to other injury-caused conditions. Objectives: This study aimed to compare opioid prescription incidence, supply days, and cost associated with occupational injury and other injury-caused conditions. Methods: We used Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) data for 2010–2019. The MEPS provides information on medical conditions and associated medical encounters, treatments, and treatment costs, as well as demographic, education, health, working status, income, and insurance coverage information. We used descriptive statistics and logistic and 2-part regressions. Results: Controlling for covariates and compared with other injury-caused conditions, occupational injury–caused conditions resulted in 33% higher odds of opioid prescribing, 32.8 more opioid prescription supply days, and $134 higher average cost. Conclusions: Occupational injuries were associated with higher opioid incidence and costs, and more opioid supply days. These findings point to the need to focus on making work safer and the role employers may play in supporting worker recovery from injury and opioid use disorders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Prescribing and consumption of opioids remain highly variable. Using a national hernia registry, we aimed to identify patient and surgery specific factors associated with low and high opioid tablet consumption after inguinal hernia repair. Methods: This was a retrospective cross-sectional study evaluating patients undergoing elective inguinal hernia repair with 30-day follow-up and patient-reported opioid consumption from March 2019 to March 2021 using the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative. Clinically significant patient demographics, comorbidities, operative details, quality-of-life measurements, and surgeon prescribing data were entered into a multivariable logistic regression model to identify statistically significant predictors of patients who took no opioid tablets or >10 tablets. Results: A total of 1937 patients were analyzed. Operations included 59% laparoscopic or robotic, 35% open mesh, and 6% open non-mesh repairs. Of these patients, 50% reported taking zero, 42% took 1–10, and 8% took ≥10 opioid tablets at 30-day follow-up. Patients who were older (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.34–1.79, p-value <0.001), ASA ≤ 2 (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.2–2.01, p-value <0.001), had no preoperative opioid use at baseline (OR 2.29, 95% CI 1.31–4.03, p-value = 0.004), had local anesthetic with general anesthesia (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.0.5–1.85, p-value = 0.022), or prescribed <7 opioid tablets (OR 2.27, 95% CI 1.96–2.62, p-value <0.001) were more likely to take no opioid tablets. Conclusion: Older, healthier, opioid naïve patients with local anesthetic administered during elective inguinal hernia repair are most likely to not require opioids. Surgeon prescribing—arguably the most modifiable factor—independently correlates with both low and high opioid consumption. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Patterns of persistent opioid use following appendectomy have not been previously elucidated. • This study further defines risk and patterns of chronic opioid use in publicly insured children following appendectomy. • 7.1% of children have persistent opioid use following appendectomy, 80.3% of whom were opioid naive. The past 5 years have witnessed a concerted national effort to assuage the rising tide of the opioid misuse in our country. Surgical procedures often serve as the initial exposure of children to opioids, however the trajectory of use following these exposures remains unclear. We hypothesized that opioid exposure following appendectomy would increase the risk of persistent opioid use among publicly insured children. A retrospective longitudinal cohort study was conducted on South Carolina Medicaid enrollees who underwent appendectomy between January 2014 and December 2017 using administrative claims data. The primary outcome was chronic opioid use. Generalized linear models and finite mixture models were employed in analysis. 1789 Medicaid pediatric patients underwent appendectomy and met inclusion criteria. The mean age was 11.1 years and 40.6% were female. Most patients (94.6%) did not receive opioids prior to surgery. Opioid prescribing ≥90 days after surgery (chronic opioid use) occurred in 127 (7.1%) patients, of which 102 (80.3%) had no opioid use in the preexposure period. Risk factors for chronic opioid use included non-naïve opioid status, re-hospitalization more than 30 days following surgery, multiple opioid prescribers, age, and multiple antidepressants/antipsychotic prescriptions. Group-based trajectory analysis demonstrated four distinct post-surgical opioid use patterns: no opioid use (91.3%), later use (6.7%), slow wean (1.9%), and higher use throughout (0.4%). Opioid exposure after appendectomy may serve as a priming event for persistent opioid use in some children. Eighty percent of children who developed post-surgical persistent opioid use had not received opioids in the 90 days leading up to surgery. Several mutable and immutable factors were identified to target future efforts toward opioid minimization in this at-risk patient population. III. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study aims to determine if outpatient opioid prescriptions are associated with future SUD diagnoses and overdose in injured adolescents 5 years following hospital discharge. Summary of Background Data: Approximately, 1 in 8 adolescents are diagnosed with an SUD and 1 in 10 experience an overdose in the 5 years following injury. State laws have become more restrictive on opioid prescribing by acute care providers for treating pain, however, prescriptions from other outpatient providers are still often obtained. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients ages 12–18 admitted to 2 level I trauma centers. Demographic and clinical data contained in trauma registries were linked to a regional database containing 5 years of electronic health records and prescription data. Regression models assessed whether number of outpatient opioid prescription fills after discharge at different time points in recovery were associated with a new SUD diagnosis or overdose, while controlling for demographic and injury characteristics, and depression and posttraumatic stress disorder diagnoses. Results: We linked 669 patients (90.9%) from trauma registries to a regional health information exchange database. Each prescription opioid refill in the first 3 months after discharge increased the likelihood of new SUD diagnoses by 55% (odds ratio: 1.55, confidence interval: 1.04–2.32). Odds of overdose increased with ongoing opioid use over 2–4 years post-discharge (P = 0.016–0.025). Conclusions: Short-term outpatient opioid prescribing over the first few months of recovery had the largest effect on developing an SUD, while long-term prescription use over multiple years was associated with a future overdose. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background The United States opioid epidemic is a devastating public health crisis fueled in part by physician prescribing. While the next generation of prescribers is crucial to the trajectory of the epidemic, medical school curricula designated to prepare students for opioid prescribing (OP) and pain management is often underdeveloped. In response to this deficit, we aimed to investigate the impact of an online opioid and pain management (OPM) educational intervention on fourth-year medical student knowledge, attitudes, and perceived competence. Methods Graduating students completing their final year of medical education at Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University were sent an e-mail invitation to complete a virtual OPM module. The module consisted of eight interactive patient cases that introduced topics through a case-based learning system, challenging students to make decisions and answer knowledge questions about the patient care process. An identical pre- and posttest were built into the module to measure general and case-specific learning objectives, with responses subsequently analyzed using the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test. Results Forty-three students (19% response rate) completed the module. All median posttest responses ranked significantly higher than paired median pretest responses (p

We hypothesized that a pain management prescribing tool embedded in the electronic health record system of a multihospital health care system would decrease prescription opioids for postoperative pain by hand, orthopedic, plastic, and spine surgeons. A prescribing tool for postoperative pain was designed for hand, orthopedic, plastic, and spine surgeons and implemented into electronic discharge order sets in a 10-hospital health care system. Stakeholders were educated on tool use in person and/or by email on 2 occasions. A dashboard was created to monitor opioid pill quantities and morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) prescribed. Overall compliance with the suggested opioid amounts was assessed for 20 months after tool implementation. A subgroup of 6 hand surgeons, one of whom was instrumental in designing the tool, were evaluated for MMEs prescribed, opioid refills, patient emergency room visits, and patient readmissions within 30 days after discharge. Comparisons in this subgroup were made from 12 months before to 15 months after tool implementation. The mean system-wide compliance with the suggested opioid pill quantities and MMEs prescribed in all 4 specialties improved by less than 5%. In the subgroup of hand surgeons, 5 of whom championed tool use, prescribed MMEs decreased by 10% during each of the 4 quarters before launching the tool and contracted an additional 26% in the first quarter after tool implementation. Opioid refills held steady at 5%, and there were no emergency room visits or readmissions within 30 days after discharge in this patient subgroup. The prescribing tool had a negligible impact on system-wide compliance with suggested prescription opioid pill quantities and MMEs. In a small group of surgeons who championed the use of the tool, there was a significant and sustained decline in MMEs prescribed without adversely impacting patient refills, emergency room visits, or readmissions. An electronic prescribing tool to assist surgeons in lowering opioid prescription pill quantities and MMEs may have a negligible impact on prescribing behavior in a multihospital health care system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective Academic detailing is a clinical education technique characterized by targeted, one-on-one, interactive conversations between trained staff and the clinician. This study describes variations in implementing academic detailing among jurisdictions receiving funding from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to prevent prescription drug overdoses. Design In 2015, CDC started the Prescription Drug Overdose Prevention for States (PfS) program. Subjects This study focuses on 11 of the 29 funded jurisdictions that implemented academic detailing as part of their PfS efforts. Methods Jurisdictions provided annual progress reports from 2016 to 2019. We conducted semistructured interviews in 2017 and 2018 with all funded jurisdictions and conducted follow-up interviews with three jurisdictions in 2020 to obtain additional context. We used an analytic matrix display to identify themes from annual progress report data, the coding report from the 2017/2018 interviews, and the three follow-up interviews from 2020. Results Two academic detailing models emerged: 1) one-on-one detailing, where centrally trained staff conducted all visits, and 2) a train-the-trainer model. Jurisdictions also described a hybrid model, which they referred to as academic detailing despite not meeting the definition of academic detailing. We identified variations in delivery strategies, staffing, and curriculum development within and between models. Despite these differences, common themes included the need to use data to focus academic detailing and the importance of partnerships. Conclusions Adoption of academic detailing as a strategy for improving opioid prescribing behaviors has increased. However, there is limited guidance and standardization to guide and evaluate implementation and outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While improving opioid safety has been a national priority, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been associated with increased rates of opioid overdose. The present study characterized outpatient opioid and naloxone prescribing patterns during the COVID-19 pandemic. A retrospective chart review was conducted of adult patients receiving opioid therapy between August 2020 through October 2020 from outpatient clinics within a Texas health system. The primary outcome was naloxone co-prescription during the study period or within the year prior. During the study period, 1,368 patients received an opioid prescription, most of which were prescribed for chronic pain treatment (63.0%). Most opioid prescriptions (91.5%) were written for < 50 MME/day. For prescriptions written for acute pain, 78% were written for ≤ 10 days supply. While 31.1% of patients received gabapentinoid prescriptions, few (7.9%) received benzodiazepine or Z-hypnotic prescriptions. Twenty-two (1.6%) patients were co-prescribed naloxone. In this study, naloxone was rarely prescribed for outpatients receiving opioid prescriptions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Health systems should continue to prioritize adherence to evidence-based clinical guidelines and increase access to naloxone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose Of Review: This review outlines the psychiatric comorbidities associated with persistent opioid use in the postoperative period. We finish our analysis with evidence-based, patient-centered interventions that can be rendered in the perioperative setting to decrease postoperative opioid requirements.Recent Findings: Opioids are overprescribed in the USA, especially in the postoperative setting. Excess opioids can result in diversion and contribute to the ongoing opioid epidemic. Mental health and substance use disorders can contribute to persistent postoperative opioid use. Adequately managing these disorders preoperatively promises to reduce persistent postoperative opioid use. Due to the lack of homogenous, evidence-based recommendations on the appropriate quantity and duration of postoperative opioid therapy, there is wide variability in provider prescribing habits. Further research is needed to establish surgery-specific postoperative opioid therapy protocols. Opioids continue to be a mainstay in the treatment of postoperative pain. Unmonitored postoperative opioid use can lead to opioid use disorder. Mental health disorders increase susceptibility to persistent postoperative opioid use. By managing these psychiatric illnesses preoperatively, clinicians have the ability to decrease opioid consumption postoperatively. Lastly, given the healthcare burden of opioid misuse and abuse, it is important to establish concrete protocols to guide provider-prescribing habits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Coprescribing naloxone with opioid analgesics is a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) best practice to mitigate the risk of fatal opioid overdose, yet coprescription by emergency medicine clinicians is rare, occurring less than 5% of the time it is indicated. Clinical decision support (CDS) has been associated with increased naloxone prescribing; however, key CDS design characteristics and pragmatic outcome measures necessary to understand replicability and effectiveness have not been reported., Objective: This study aimed to rigorously evaluate and quantify the impact of CDS designed to improve emergency department (ED) naloxone coprescribing. We hypothesized CDS would increase naloxone coprescribing and the number of naloxone prescriptions filled by patients discharged from EDs in a large health care system., Methods: Following user-centered design principles, we designed and implemented a fully automated, interruptive, electronic health record-based CDS to nudge clinicians to coprescribe naloxone with high-risk opioid prescriptions. "High-risk" opioid prescriptions were defined as any opioid analgesic prescription ≥90 total morphine milligram equivalents per day or for patients with a prior diagnosis of opioid use disorder or opioid overdose. The Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework was used to evaluate pragmatic CDS outcomes of reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance. Effectiveness was the primary outcome of interest and was assessed by (1) constructing a Bayesian structural time-series model of the number of ED visits with naloxone coprescriptions before and after CDS implementation and (2) calculating the percentage of naloxone prescriptions associated with CDS that were filled at an outpatient pharmacy. Mann-Kendall tests were used to evaluate longitudinal trends in CDS adoption. All outcomes were analyzed in R (version 4.2.2; R Core Team)., Unlabelled: Between November 2019 and July 2023, there were 1,994,994 ED visits. CDS reached clinicians in 0.83% (16,566/1,994,994) of all visits and 15.99% (16,566/103,606) of ED visits where an opioid was prescribed at discharge. Clinicians adopted CDS, coprescribing naloxone in 34.36% (6613/19,246) of alerts. CDS was effective, increasing naloxone coprescribing from baseline by 18.1 (95% CI 17.9-18.3) coprescriptions per week or 2,327% (95% CI 3390-3490). Patients filled 43.80% (1989/4541) of naloxone coprescriptions. The CDS was implemented simultaneously at every ED and no adaptations were made to CDS postimplementation. CDS was maintained beyond the study period and maintained its effect, with adoption increasing over time (τ=0.454; P<.001)., Conclusions: Our findings advance the evidence that electronic health record-based CDS increases the number of naloxone coprescriptions and improves the distribution of naloxone. Our time series analysis controls for secular trends and strongly suggests that minimally interruptive CDS significantly improves process outcomes., (© Stuart W Sommers, Heather J Tolle, Katy E Trinkley, Christine G Johnston, Caitlin L Dietsche, Stephanie V Eldred, Abraham T Wick, Jason A Hoppe. Originally published in JMIR Medical Informatics (https://medinform.jmir.org).)

Background: Opioids, prescribed to manage pain, are associated with safety risks. Quality improvement strategies such as audit and feedback and academic detailing may improve prescribing in primary care., Methods: We used a matched-cohort design with claims databases. Participants were family physicians practicing in Ontario, Canada. The interventions were a voluntary audit and feedback report with or without academic detailing sessions. Physicians in the control group received neither intervention. The primary outcome was mean rate of high-risk opioid prescriptions per 100 patients per month. Data were analyzed comparing monthly percentage change in slope over 12 months before and 18 months after the intervention. Additional analyses considered only the subgroup of higher-prescribing physicians., Results: There were 1469 (25%) physicians in the audit and feedback group, 245 (4%) in the audit and feedback + academic detailing group, and 4211 (71%) matched controls. All groups showed a significant preintervention decline in opioid prescribing. There were no significant between-group differences in opioid prescribing postintervention. Among high-prescribing physicians, there was a significant reduction in the audit and feedback group (% change in slope = -0.37, 95% CI = -0.65 to -0.09, P < .01), but not in the academic detailing group (% change in slope = 0.19, 95% CI = -0.52 to 0.91, P = .59)., Conclusions: This study demonstrated declining secular trends in prescribing and suggests that two large-scale initiatives had limited additional benefits. We found some additional reductions after audit and feedback among the highest-volume opioid prescribers. Future interventions should focus on these physicians for the greatest benefit., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)