Treatment Patterns and Medication Use in Patients with Postherpetic Neuralgia.

BACKGROUND: Postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) is a chronic, painful condition characterized by persistent pain following resolution of a herpes zoster (HZ) infection. Epidemiologic data demonstrate that the risks for HZ infections and the development of PHN increase with age. OBJECTIVE: To characterize prescribing patterns, health care utilization, and treatment costs for adults with PHN based on real-world data. METHODS: This study analyzed medical and pharmacy claims from 2010 to 2014 in the MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases. PHN patients were identified based on criteria from a published algorithm. PHN treatment patterns were analyzed by age and reported descriptively for patients aged < 65 or ≥ 65 years. Excess incremental health care costs were calculated for PHN patients by comparing expenditures for a cohort of PHN patients to expenditures of a propensity score-matched control group of patients with HZ alone. RESULTS: Approximately 0.4% of patients aged < 65 years were diagnosed with HZ versus 1.3% of patients aged ≥ 65 years; approximately 15.3% of HZ patients aged < 65 years and 26.4% of patients aged ≥ 65 years were diagnosed with PHN. Overall, opioids remained the most frequently prescribed initial treatment. Approximately 21.6% of PHN patients received an opioid as an initial treatment for PHN, 15.1% received gabapentin; 8.9% received a prescription nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID); 8.3% received a lidocaine patch; 3.3% received pregabalin; 2.5% received a tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs); 0.8% received other topical lidocaine; and < 1% received capsaicin. Observed first-line use of the lidocaine patch and gabapentin was higher in patients aged ≥ 65 years relative to patients aged < 65 years. When separated by age group, only 24.6% of patients aged < 65 years and 38.5% of patients aged ≥ 65 years were prescribed a recommended first-line treatment for initial PHN therapy (gabapentin, lidocaine patch, pregabalin, and TCAs). Comparisons of treatment costs of PHN patients to matched HZ patients without PHN indicated that PHN patients initiated on opioids had the highest mean additional health care expenditure compared with PHN patients initiated on other medications. On average, PHN patients initiated on opioids had $7,601 additional health care expenditure compared with HZ patients with no PHN; additional expenditures were $6,428 for pregabalin, $4,213 for lidocaine patches, $3,478 for gabapentin, $3,304 for NSAIDs, and $2,797 for TCAs, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Management of PHN is associated with substantial utilization of opioid-based therapies across all ages. Medications supported by evidence either as first-line therapies or as part of a multimodal regimen for the management of PHN are underused relative to opioid-based PHN therapies. Improving adherence to evidence-based PHN treatment regimens offers the potential to reduce opioid prescribing first line and reduce overall treatment costs. Given the emphasis to reduce opioid prescribing to minimize the risk of dependence, abuse, and diversion, multimodal analgesic treatments that can avoid or reduce opioid use should be considered. DISCLOSURES: Research funding was provided by SCILEX Pharmaceuticals. The sponsor reviewed and approved the research plan and provided support for manuscript preparation through Patel's role as a coauthor of this manuscript. The sponsor's product (lidocaine patch) was not used in this study. Patel is a paid employee of SCILEX Pharmaceuticals. Goss is an employee and minority owner of Boston Healthcare Associates, which received a research grant from SCILEX Pharmaceuticals to conduct this study. Gudin reports advisory board fees from AcelRx Pharmaceuticals and BioDelivery Sciences International and consulting fees from Averitas, Daiichi, Hisumitsu, Nektar, Purdue, Quest Diagnostics, SCILEX Pharmaceuticals, and US WorldMeds, unrelated to this study. Fudin reports advisory board fees from AcelRx Pharmaceuticals, Human Half-Cell, Quest Diagnostics, GlaxoSmithKline, SCILEX Pharmaceuticals, BioDelivery Sciences, Daiichi Sankyo, and Salix Pharmaceuticals; speaker fees from Daiichi Sankyo, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Abbott Laboratories, Acutis Diagnostics, and AstraZeneca; and consulting fees from Firstox Laboratories, unrelated to this study. The other authors have nothing to disclose. Parts of this research were presented at the AMCP Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy Annual Meeting; April 22, 2016; San Francisco, CA, and at the 35th Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Pain Society; May 11-14, 2016; Austin, TX.

Assessment of potentially abuse-related events in two phase 3 studies of NKTR-181, a novel opioid analgesic, using the MADDERS® system (Misuse, Abuse, and Diversion Drug Event Reporting System).

Objective: To prospectively evaluate the abuse potential of NKTR-181, a novel opioid analgesic, in two phase 3 clinical trials using a newly developed reporting system: the Misuse, Abuse, and Diversion Drug Event Reporting System (MADDERS®).Methods: SUMMIT-07 was an enriched enrollment randomized withdrawal study that examined the safety and efficacy of NKTR-181 across 12 weeks in opioid-naïve subjects with chronic low back pain. SUMMIT-LTS was a 52 week open-label study in opioid-naïve and experienced subjects with chronic low back pain or noncancer pain rolled over from SUMMIT-07 or enrolled de novo. System evaluations were triggered by adverse events of interest and drug accountability discrepancies signaling potentially abuse-related events. Each event was assigned a primary classification and supplementary classification(s) by investigators and by a blinded, independent committee of substance abuse experts (adjudicators). At the final study visit, investigators administered a survey to subjects to identify overlooked events of interest.Results: Seventy-nine (6.6%) of 1189 subjects were associated with 86 events in SUMMIT-07 and 51 (8.0%) of 638 subjects were associated with 59 events in SUMMIT-LTS. Most events were attributed to "Withdrawal" and, primarily in SUMMIT-07, "Therapeutic Error" (unintentional overuse) or "Misuse" (intentional overuse for a therapeutic purpose) of study medication. Adjudicators identified five possible "Abuse" events (three NKTR-181, two placebo) in SUMMIT-07 and four possible "Abuse" events (all NKTR-181) in SUMMIT-LTS.Conclusions: The MADDERS® system discerns potentially abuse-related events and identified low rates of withdrawal and a low risk of abuse potential, diversion or addiction associated with NKTR-181 in phase 3 trials.

Drug Misuse and Hepatitis C Virus Infection Profiles for Three Generations of Patients Being Monitored for Prescription Drug Adherence.

OBJECTIVES: Two epidemics in the United States are related: opioid drug injection and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. This study quantifies the relationship between illicit/prescription drug misuse and HCV infection in 3 population generations: baby boomers (born 1945-1965, inclusive), pre-baby boomers, and post-baby boomers. METHODS: This retrospective study included prescription drug consistency (March-December 2015) and HCV (2011-2015) patient test results performed at a large national clinical reference laboratory. HCV positivity, drug use consistency/inconsistency with prescribed drug information, type of inconsistent use, and inconsistent use of individual drug classes were assessed. RESULTS: This study evaluated 39,231 prescription drug monitoring and HCV sets of test results from 18,410 patients. Of these patients, 25.1% tested positive for HCV and 57.3% demonstrated drug test results that were inconsistent with the prescribed medication(s). The types of drug test inconsistency differed substantially between HCV-positive and -negative patients, particularly testing positive for both non-prescribed drugs and prescribed drugs. Specimens from HCV-positive baby boomer and post-baby boomers demonstrated non-prescribed use of opioids and many other drug classes more often than from HCV-negative patients. CONCLUSIONS: The rates of inconsistent drug test results and types of drugs misused suggest that HCV-positive patients are more likely than HCV-negative patients to display high-risk behavior, even beyond opioid use. This difference is most pronounced in the post-baby boomer generation. Healthcare professionals should consider these patterns and how they differ by generation when monitoring for both prescription and illicit drugs, the results of which can impact treatment decisions including prescribing analgesics.

Concurrent Use of Opioids and Benzodiazepines: Evaluation of Prescription Drug Monitoring by a United States Laboratory.

OBJECTIVES: Recently, more than 63% of the 52,404 drug overdose deaths in the United States involved heroin and opioid pain medications. More than 30% of opioid-related deaths also involved benzodiazepines. Previous studies examining the extent of concurrent opioid and benzodiazepine use have relied on prescription data. To gain fuller insight into the extent of the concurrent use problem, we analyzed opioid and benzodiazepine prescription patterns in the context of drug testing results. METHODS: All specimens from patients that were prescribed at least 1 drug and were tested for both opioids and benzodiazepines by a national reference laboratory were included. This resulted in an analytical set of 231,228 sets of test results from 144,535 patients with diverse demographic factors being tested in a variety of health care settings. RESULTS: Laboratory test results indicated concurrent use of opioids and benzodiazepines in over 25% of patients. In 52% of test results with evidence of concurrent use, 1 drug class was prescribed and the other was non-prescribed. Nearly 1 in 5 specimens (19%) testing positive for prescribed opioids also tested positive for non-prescribed benzodiazepines. Over 15% of specimens with prescribed benzodiazepines also demonstrated non-prescribed opioid use. CONCLUSIONS: The extent of concurrent use of benzodiazepines and opioids, particularly non-prescribed use, suggests the need for more effective clinician assessment and intervention. The results support the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention opioid prescribing guidelines that drug testing occur before and periodically throughout opioid use and suggest that this testing should be extended to patients prescribed benzodiazepines as well.

Consensus Recommendations on Initiating Prescription Therapies for Opioid-Induced Constipation.

OBJECTIVE: Aims of this consensus panel were to determine (1) an optimal symptom-based method for assessing opioid-induced constipation in clinical practice and (2) a threshold of symptom severity to prompt consideration of prescription therapy. METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel of 10 experts with extensive knowledge/experience with opioid-associated adverse events convened to discuss the literature on assessment methods used for opioid-induced constipation and reach consensus on each objective using the nominal group technique. RESULTS: Five validated assessment tools were evaluated: the Patient Assessment of Constipation-Symptoms (PAC-SYM), Patient Assessment of Constipation-Quality of Life (PAC-QOL), Stool Symptom Screener (SSS), Bowel Function Index (BFI), and Bowel Function Diary (BF-Diary). The 3-item BFI and 4-item SSS, both clinician administered, are the shortest tools. In published trials, the BFI and 12-item PAC-SYM are most commonly used. The 11-item BF-Diary is highly relevant in opioid-induced constipation and was developed and validated in accordance with US Food and Drug Administration guidelines. However, the panel believes that the complex scoring for this tool and the SSS, PAC-SYM, and 28-item PAC-QOL may be unfeasible for clinical practice. The BFI is psychometrically validated and responsive to changes in symptom severity; scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating greater severity and scores >28.8 points indicating constipation. CONCLUSIONS: The BFI is a simple assessment tool with a validated threshold of clinically significant constipation. Prescription treatments for opioid-induced constipation should be considered for patients who have a BFI score of ≥30 points and an inadequate response to first-line interventions.

Acute pain: effective management requires comprehensive assessment.

Pain is among the most common reasons that patients seek medical care, and inadequate assessment may result in suboptimal management. Acute pain in response to trauma or surgery can be complex, variable, and dynamic, but its assessment is often simplistic and brief. One-dimensional rating scale measures of pain severity facilitate rapid evaluation and often form the basis of treatment algorithms. However, additional features of pain should inform the selection of a treatment regimen, and can include pain qualities, duration, impact on functional capabilities, and underlying cause. Patient age, sex, psychosocial features, and comorbid conditions are also important features to consider. Use of a multidimensional tool is recommended for assessing many of these features if time permits. Additionally, clinicians often fail to recognize or consider the potentially detrimental long-term effects of acute pain. As the United States continues to experience a prescription drug crisis, a "universal precautions" approach including abuse risk assessment and abuse deterrence strategies should be implemented for patients receiving opioids. Increased efforts and research are necessary to enhance the utility of available acute pain assessment tools. Developing more comprehensive tools for patient assessment is the first step in achieving the ultimate goal of effective acute pain management. The objectives of this review are to summarize issues regarding the complexity of acute pain and to provide suggestions for its evaluation.

Assessment of extended-release opioid analgesics for the treatment of chronic pain.

Approximately 3.8 million patients annually receive extended-release (ER) or long-acting opioid prescriptions in the outpatient setting, around half of which are written by primary care physicians. Compared with short-acting, immediate-release (IR) formulations, ER and oral long-acting opioid analgesics are associated with clinical advantages, such as extended periods of time during which drug plasma levels are within the therapeutic range, decreased peak-to-trough fluctuations, and prolonged analgesia over the dosing period. Additionally, ER opioids offer a more convenient, less frequent dosing regimen to chronic pain patients who are often taking several concomitant medications. The increased utilization of ER opioids has been accompanied by a rise in the misuse and abuse of these formulations. Certain pharmacokinetic parameters (e.g., longer time to maximum drug plasma concentration, lower maximum drug plasma concentration) may decrease the abuse potential of intact ER opioids by limiting the positive subjective and reinforcing effects relative to IR formulations. Putative abuse-deterrent formulations have also recently been introduced to impede physical manipulation of these formulations, or reduce the harm resulting from such behavior. Such formulations may represent an incremental advance to reduce non-oral forms of abuse. This article reviews the pharmacokinetic profiles and abuse-deterrent features of newer ER opioid analgesics for the treatment of moderate to severe chronic pain.

Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) for extended-release and long-acting opioid analgesics: considerations for palliative care practice.

Prescription opioid analgesics are an essential treatment option for patients with moderate to severe pain. Over the last decade the increased medical use of these agents has contributed to a public health epidemic of abuse, addiction, and overdose-related deaths. These medications remain mainstays in both primary care and pain management practices. As palliative services are incorporated at earlier stages of the disease process and the number of individuals with chronic illness increases, palliative care specialists may encounter an increasing number of patients with opioid abuse and addiction problems. Extended-release (ER) and long-acting (LA) opioid formulations are administered to patients with moderate to severe chronic pain requiring around-the-clock analgesia. Given the large quantity of active ingredient contained within some dosage strengths, this medication class is associated with serious risks when taken improperly. In response to growing reports of abuse and overdose deaths, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the need for a risk mitigation strategy for the entire class of medication. The class-wide Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) for ER/LA opioids will emphasize prescriber training and patient education to ensure that the therapeutic benefits outweigh the risks of addiction, unintentional overdose, and death. As primary care, pain management, and palliative care clinicians often encounter patients who require ER/LA opioids, an understanding of the suggested requirements and potential impact of this regulation is essential.