Prescription opioid utilization patterns, and associated outcomes, among privately insured patients prescribed opioids to manage pain associated with osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To describe utilization patterns, negative clinical outcomes and economic burden of patients diagnosed with osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip and/or knee who received a prescription for tramadol or non-tramadol opioids vs. non-opioid drugs. METHODS: Optum Healthcare Solutions, Inc. commercial claims data were used (1/2012--3/2017). Adults with ≥2 diagnoses of OA of the hip and/or knee, and ≥30 days supply of pain medications were identified during the three-year period from the date of first prescription (index date) after the first OA diagnosis. Drug utilization statistics in the follow-up period were summarized by initial treatment (i.e. tramadol, non-tramadol opioids, non-opioid drugs). Opioid initiators were matched to those initiated on non-opioid treatments using a propensity score model accounting for baseline characteristics. Matched pairs analysis compared outcomes for these cohorts. RESULTS: Of 62,715 total patients, 15,270 (24.3%) initiated treatment with opioids, including 3,513 (5.6%) on tramadol and 11,757 (18.7%) on non-tramadol opioids. Opioid initiators had more comorbidities, higher baseline healthcare costs, and were more likely to have OA of the hip. Among non-opioid initiators, 27.5% switched to tramadol and 63% switched to non-tramadol opioids. Among tramadol initiators, 71% switched to non-tramadol opioids. Patients initiated on opioids had 20.4% (p < .01) higher all-cause healthcare costs and higher percentages experiencing multiple negative clinical outcomes (all p < .01) compared to matched controls. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with OA of the hip and/or knee either initiate on or switch to opioids for long-term management of OA-related pain despite known risks. This highlights the need for new treatments that delay or prevent use of opioids.

A comparison of the Sepsis-2 and Sepsis-3 definitions for assessment of mortality risk in dogs with parvovirus.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the use of a modified Sepsis-3 (mSepsis-3) definition compared to the currently used modified Sepsis-2 (mSepsis-2) definition to determine whether the mSepsis-2 or mSepsis-3 stratifications were able to identify populations of dogs ultimately more likely to die from canine parvovirus (CPV) infection. DESIGN: Retrospective, January 2009 to March 2020. SETTING: A private, small animal, urban, referral emergency and specialty hospital. ANIMALS: Fifty-nine client-owned dogs hospitalized for treatment of CPV. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Dogs were divided into mSepsis-2 and mSepsis-3 categories based on the highest level of illness severity reached during hospitalization. Greater illness severity based on mSepsis-2 criteria (ie, sepsis, severe sepsis, septic shock) was associated with an increase in average length of stay (P < 0.001), increase in average cost of stay (P < 0.01), and presence of leukopenia (P < 0.05). An increase in illness severity within the mSepsis-2 criteria was not associated with hyperlactatemia (P = 0.29), presence of neutropenia (P = 0.12), or mortality (P = 0.35). Greater illness severity based on mSepsis-3 criteria (ie, infection only, sepsis, septic shock) was associated with an increase in mortality (P < 0.05), increase in average length of stay (P < 0.001), increase in average cost of stay (P < 0.01), presence of leukopenia (P < 0.01), and presence of neutropenia (P < 0.05). The mSepsis-3 criteria were not associated with the presence of hyperlactatemia (P = 0.68). There was no significant difference between survivors and nonsurvivors in the presence of leukopenia (P = 0.19), neutropenia (P = 0.67), or hyperlactatemia (P = 0.58). CONCLUSIONS: The mSepsis-3 diagnostic criteria appear to better identify dogs with CPV at higher risk for mortality compared to the mSepsis-2 criteria.

Clinical and economic burden of prescribing tramadol and other opioids for patients with osteoarthritis in a commercially insured population in the United States.

ABSTRACT: In 2019, the American College of Rheumatology conditionally recommended tramadol and conditionally recommended against nontramadol opioids for patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis. Although tramadol is known to be less prone to opioid use disorders, little is known about the differing magnitude of negative clinical outcomes, health care resource utilization, and costs of tramadol relative to nontramadol opioids. Administrative claims records for commercially insured patients with osteoarthritis who were prescribed opioids were used to compare clinical and cost outcomes during a 3-year follow-up period by conducting a pre-post analysis and a matched case-cohort analysis. Data for 14,491 patients were analyzed: 4048 (28%) were initiated on tramadol, and 10,443 (72%) were initiated on nontramadol opioids. After matching, 4048 patients per cohort were analyzed. In each empirical analysis, tramadol patients did develop opioid use disorders; however, opioid use disorder rates were 3.5-fold higher in the nontramadol cohort (1.2% vs 4.2%). In addition, rates of other opioid-related clinical outcomes (falls, fractures, nausea, fatigue, and constipation) were also directionally lower among the tramadol cohort, although quantitatively similar (<5% difference) to the nontramadol cohort. Finally, in both analyses, the nontramadol cohort incurred higher levels of inpatient and emergency department visits and all-cause costs during the 3-year follow-up period. However, tramadol patients incur a higher incremental change (+$24,013) in costs relative to their pretreatment baseline compared with nontramadol (+$18,191). These real-world findings demonstrated lower risks with tramadol relative to other opioids, albeit risks and increased health care costs were present with tramadol, highlighting the need for further strategies to improve outcomes.

Assessment of Work Loss Associated With Prescription-Related Opioid Use Disorder: A Retrospective Analysis of Claims Data.

OBJECTIVE: Quantify work loss and costs associated with prescription opioid use disorder (OUD) from the employer perspective. METHODS: Retrospective claims analysis to compare missed work days and associated costs between employees with and without an OUD diagnosis in a 12-month period. RESULTS: Two thousand three hundred eleven matched-pairs of employees were compared. The mean (SD) number of days missed while waiting for disability benefits (0.24 [1.4] vs 0.17 [1.0]; P = 0.035), absenteeism due to disability claims (9.5 [40.9] vs 5.6 [30.0]; P < 0.001), and medical visits (17.8 [18.5] vs 10.0 [12.4]; P < 0.001) was higher for employees with OUD compared with those without, resulting in higher mean (SD) indirect cost estimates of $8193 ($14,694) per employee (OUD) versus $5438 ($13,683) per employee (no OUD) (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Prescription OUD is associated with significant work loss and may pose considerable economic burden on employers.