Association of initial opioid prescription duration and an opioid refill by pain diagnosis: Evidence from outpatient settings in ten US health systems.

OBJECTIVE: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's 2022 Clinical Practice Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Pain cautioned that inflexible opioid prescription duration limits may harm patients. Information about the relationship between initial opioid prescription duration and a subsequent refill could inform prescribing policies and practices to optimize patient outcomes. We assessed the association between initial opioid duration and an opioid refill prescription. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adults ≥19 years of age in 10 US health systems between 2013 and 2018 from outpatient care with a diagnosis for back pain without radiculopathy, back pain with radiculopathy, neck pain, joint pain, tendonitis/bursitis, mild musculoskeletal pain, severe musculoskeletal pain, urinary calculus, or headache. Generalized additive models were used to estimate the association between opioid days' supply and a refill prescription. RESULTS: Overall, 220,797 patients were prescribed opioid analgesics upon an outpatient visit for pain. Nearly a quarter (23.5%) of the cohort received an opioid refill prescription during follow-up. The likelihood of a refill generally increased with initial duration for most pain diagnoses. About 1 to 3 fewer patients would receive a refill within 3 months for every 100 patients initially prescribed 3 vs. 7 days of opioids for most pain diagnoses. The lowest likelihood of refill was for a 1-day supply for all pain diagnoses, except for severe musculoskeletal pain (9 days' supply) and headache (3-4 days' supply). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term prescription opioid use increased modestly with initial opioid prescription duration for most but not all pain diagnoses examined.

Prescription Opioid Dose Reductions and Potential Adverse Events: a Multi-site Observational Cohort Study in Diverse US Health Systems.

BACKGROUND: In response to the opioid crisis in the United States, population-level prescribing of opioids has been decreasing; there are concerns, however, that dose reductions are related to potential adverse events. OBJECTIVE: Examine associations between opioid dose reductions and risk of 1-month potential adverse events (emergency department (ED) visits, opioid overdose, benzodiazepine prescription fill, all-cause mortality). DESIGN: This observational cohort study used electronic health record and claims data from eight United States health systems in a prescription opioid registry (Clinical Trials Network-0084). All opioid fills (excluding buprenorphine) between 1/1/2012 and 12/31/2018 were used to identify baseline periods with mean morphine milligram equivalents daily dose of  ≥ 50 during six consecutive months. PATIENTS: We identified 60,040 non-cancer patients with  ≥ one 2-month dose reduction period (600,234 unique dose reduction periods). MAIN MEASURES: Analyses examined associations between dose reduction levels (1- < 15%, 15- < 30%, 30- < 100%, 100% over 2 months) and potential adverse events in the month following a dose reduction using logistic regression analysis, adjusting for patient characteristics. KEY RESULTS: Overall, dose reduction periods involved mean reductions of 18.7%. Compared to reductions of 1- < 15%, dose reductions of 30- < 100% were associated with higher odds of ED visits (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.10, 1.17), opioid overdose (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.09-1.81), and all-cause mortality (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.16-1.67), but lower odds of a benzodiazepine fill (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.81-0.85). Dose reductions of 15- < 30%, compared to 1- < 15%, were associated with higher odds of ED visits (OR 1.08, 95% CI 1.05-1.11) and lower odds of a benzodiazepine fill (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.92-0.95), but were not associated with opioid overdose and all-cause mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Larger reductions for patients on opioid therapy may raise risk of potential adverse events in the month after reduction and should be carefully monitored.

The association between buprenorphine treatment duration and mortality: a multi-site cohort study of people who discontinued treatment.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Buprenorphine is an effective medication for opioid use disorder that reduces mortality; however, many patients are not retained in buprenorphine treatment, and an optimal length of treatment after which patients can safely discontinue treatment has not been identified. This study measured the association between buprenorphine treatment duration and all-cause mortality among patients who discontinued treatment. Secondary objectives were to measure the association between treatment duration and drug overdose and opioid-related overdoses. DESIGN: Multi-site cohort study. SETTING: Eight US health systems. PARTICIPANTS: Patients who initiated and discontinued buprenorphine treatment between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2018 (n = 6550). Outcomes occurring after patients discontinued buprenorphine treatment were compared between patients who initiated and discontinued treatment after 8-30, 31-90, 91-180, 181-365 and > 365 days. MEASUREMENTS: Covariate data were obtained from electronic health records (EHRs). Mortality outcomes were derived from EHRs and state vital statistics. Non-fatal opioid and drug overdoses were obtained from diagnostic codes. Four sites provided cause-of-death data to identify fatal drug and opioid-related overdoses. Adjusted frailty regression was conducted on a propensity-weighted cohort to assess associations between duration of the final treatment episode and outcomes. FINDINGS: The mortality rate after buprenorphine treatment was 1.82 per 100 person-years (n = 191 deaths). In regression analyses with > 365 days as the reference group, treatment duration was not associated with all-cause mortality and drug overdose (P > 0.05 for both). However, compared with > 365 days of treatment, 91-180 days of treatment was associated with increased opioid overdose risk (hazard ratio = 2.94, 95% confidence interval = 1.11-7.79). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who discontinue buprenorphine treatment, there appears to be no treatment duration period associated with a reduced risk for all-cause mortality. Patients who discontinue buprenorphine treatment after 91-180 days appear to be at heightened risk for opioid overdose compared with patients who discontinue after > 365 days of treatment.

Development and implementation of a prescription opioid registry across diverse health systems.

Objective: Develop and implement a prescription opioid registry in 10 diverse health systems across the US and describe trends in prescribed opioids between 2012 and 2018. Materials and Methods: Using electronic health record and claims data, we identified patients who had an outpatient fill for any prescription opioid, and/or an opioid use disorder diagnosis, between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2018. The registry contains distributed files of prescription opioids, benzodiazepines and other select medications, opioid antagonists, clinical diagnoses, procedures, health services utilization, and health plan membership. Rates of outpatient opioid fills over the study period, standardized to health system demographic distributions, are described by age, gender, and race/ethnicity among members without cancer. Results: The registry includes 6 249 710 patients and over 40 million outpatient opioid fills. For the combined registry population, opioid fills declined from a high of 0.718 per member-year in 2013 to 0.478 in 2018, and morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) per fill declined from 985 MMEs per fill in 2012 to 758 MMEs in 2018. MMEs per member declined from 692 MMEs per member in 2012 to 362 MMEs per member in 2018. Conclusion: This study established a population-based opioid registry across 10 diverse health systems that can be used to address questions related to opioid use. Initial analyses showed large reductions in overall opioid use per member among the combined health systems. The registry will be used in future studies to answer a broad range of other critical public health issues relating to prescription opioid use.

Future directions for medication assisted treatment for opioid use disorder with American Indian/Alaska Natives.

The U.S. is experiencing an alarming opioid epidemic, and although American Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/ANs) are especially hard hit, there is a paucity of opioid-related treatment research with these communities. AI/ANs are second only to Whites in the U.S. for overdose mortality. Thus, the National Institute on Drug Abuse convened a meeting of key stakeholders to elicit feedback on the acceptability and uptake of medication assisted treatment (MAT) for opioid use disorders (OUDs) among AI/ANs. Five themes from this one-day meeting emerged: 1) the mismatch between Western secular and reductionistic medicine and the AI/AN holistic healing tradition; 2) the need to integrate MAT into AI/AN traditional healing; 3) the conflict between standardized MAT delivery and the traditional AI/AN desire for healing to include being medicine free; 4) systemic barriers; and 5) the need to improve research with AI/ANs using culturally relevant methods. Discussion is organized around key implementation strategies informed by these themes and necessary for the successful adoption of MAT in AI/AN communities: 1) type of medication; 2) educational interventions; 3) coordination of care; and 4) adjunctive psychosocial counseling. Using a community-based participatory research approach is consistent with a "two eyed seeing" approach that integrates Western and Indigenous worldviews. Such an approach is needed to develop impactful research in collaboration with AI/AN communities to address OUD health disparities.

Advancing American Indian and Alaska Native substance abuse research: current science and future directions.

American Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/AN) have disproportionately high rates of substance abuse yet there is little empirical research addressing this significant public health problem. This paper is an introduction to a special issue that includes cutting edge science in this research area. We identify several areas that require consideration in this field and indicate how the papers in the special issue address these gaps. These overarching areas of need, which should be considered in any substantive research, include attention to heterogeneity within the population, research that has tangible health benefits, continued work on research methods and strategies, increased focus on strength based and community oriented approaches, and the need for strong research partnerships. The special issue marks a major step forward for AI/AN substance abuse research. However, articles also highlight where more work is need to improve public health in AI/AN communities by addressing identified gap areas.

Conducting research with racial/ethnic minorities: methodological lessons from the NIDA Clinical Trials Network.

BACKGROUND: Multiple studies in the National Institute on Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network (CTN) demonstrate strategies for conducting effective substance abuse treatment research with racial/ethnic minorities (REMs). OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this article are to describe lessons learned within the CTN to (1) enhance recruitment, retention, and other outcomes; (2) assess measurement equivalence; and (3) use data analytic plans that yield more information. METHOD: This article includes background information and examples from multiple CTN studies on inclusion, measurement, and data analysis. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Seven recommendations are included for conducting more effective research on REMs.

Addiction treatment trials: how gender, race/ethnicity, and age relate to ongoing participation and retention in clinical trials.

INTRODUCTION: Historically, racial and ethnic minority populations have been underrepresented in clinical research, and the recruitment and retention of women and ethnic minorities in clinical trials has been a significant challenge for investigators. The National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (CTN) conducts clinical trials in real-life settings and regularly monitors a number of variables critical to clinical trial implementation, including the retention and demographics of participants. PURPOSE: The examination of gender, race/ethnicity, and age group differences with respect to retention characteristics in CTN trials. METHODS: Reports for 24 completed trials that recruited over 11,000 participants were reviewed, and associations of gender, race/ethnicity, and age group characteristics were examined along with the rate of treatment exposure, the proportion of follow-up assessments obtained, and the availability of primary outcome measure(s). RESULTS: Analysis of the CTN data did not indicate statistical differences in retention across gender or race/ethnicity groups; however, retention rates increased for older participants. CONCLUSION: These results are based on a large sample of patients with substance use disorders recruited from a treatment-seeking population. The findings demonstrate that younger participants are less likely than older adults to be retained in clinical trials.

Principles for defining adverse events in behavioral intervention research: lessons from a family-focused adolescent drug abuse trial.

BACKGROUND: Behavioral intervention research has lagged behind biomedical research in developing principles for defining, categorizing, identifying, reporting, and monitoring adverse events and unanticipated problems. PURPOSE: In this article we present a set of principles for defining adverse events and how they were applied in a large national multi-site family therapy study for substance-using adolescents, The Brief Strategic Family Therapy (BSFT) Effectiveness Study. METHODS: The BSFT Effectiveness study tested how BSFT compares to Treatment as Usual (TAU) for the treatment of drug-abusing adolescents. During protocol development, experts in the BSFT intervention, medical safety officers, ethicists and senior investigators defined the procedures for identifying, tracking and reporting adverse events for drug using adolescents as well as their family members. During this process the team identified five key guiding principles. RESULTS: The five guiding principles that were used for defining adverse events in this behavioral trial were that that the adverse events should be validated and plausible, and that monitoring systems should assess relatedness, be systematic, and are a shared responsibility. The following non-serious adverse events were identified: arrest, school suspension and drop out, runaway, kicked out of home and violence. The serious adverse events in this study for the identified adolescent participant and all other consented family members were physical or sexual abuse, suicidal behavior, homicidal behavior, hospitalization (drug related or psychiatric related only) and death. The methods used in categorizing, identifying and reporting adverse events in the BSFT trial are outlined. More than 50% of the adolescent population (277/481 = 57.5 %) experienced an adverse event during the trial. Family members experienced less adverse events, (61/1338 = 4.5%). The most common event for the adolescent group was arrest (164/277= 59.2%), followed by school suspension/dropout (143/277 = 51.6%), and runaway (79/277= 28.5 %). For the family member group, the most common event was violence (25/ 61 = 40.9%) followed by arrest (13/61 = 21.3%). There was a significant difference in the presence of adverse events in family members that were randomized to BSFT 44/721 (6.1%) when compared to Treatment as Usual 17/617 (2.8%) (p = 0.004). A probable explanation for this is that there were more opportunities to identify adverse events for family members assigned to BSFT because family members attended therapy sessions. This difference may also represent the risk for family members that participate in an evidence-based family intervention like BSFT. LIMITATIONS: The utility of the principles outside of the BSFT trial is unknown. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the events reported in this trial, the efforts for monitoring and categorizing adverse events appeared justified and appropriate. The strategies and principles described in this paper may be useful for those developing safety plans for behavioral intervention research, and to family therapy researchers for assessing the safety of behavioral family interventions.