Effects of State Opioid Prescribing Laws on Use of Opioid and Other Pain Treatments Among Commercially Insured U.S. Adults.

BACKGROUND: There is concern that state laws to curb opioid prescribing may adversely affect patients with chronic noncancer pain, but the laws' effects are unclear because of challenges in disentangling multiple laws implemented around the same time. OBJECTIVE: To study the association between state opioid prescribing cap laws, pill mill laws, and mandatory prescription drug monitoring program query or enrollment laws and trends in opioid and guideline-concordant nonopioid pain treatment among commercially insured adults, including a subgroup with chronic noncancer pain conditions. DESIGN: Thirteen treatment states that implemented a single law of interest in a 4-year period and unique groups of control states for each treatment state were identified. Augmented synthetic control analyses were used to estimate the association between each state law and outcomes. SETTING: United States, 2008 to 2019. PATIENTS: 7 694 514 commercially insured adults aged 18 years or older, including 1 976 355 diagnosed with arthritis, low back pain, headache, fibromyalgia, and/or neuropathic pain. MEASUREMENTS: Proportion of patients receiving any opioid prescription or guideline-concordant nonopioid pain treatment per month, and mean days' supply and morphine milligram equivalents (MME) of prescribed opioids per day, per patient, per month. RESULTS: Laws were associated with small-in-magnitude and non-statistically significant changes in outcomes, although CIs around some estimates were wide. For adults overall and those with chronic noncancer pain, the 13 state laws were each associated with a change of less than 1 percentage point in the proportion of patients receiving any opioid prescription and a change of less than 2 percentage points in the proportion receiving any guideline-concordant nonopioid treatment, per month. The laws were associated with a change of less than 1 in days' supply of opioid prescriptions and a change of less than 4 in average monthly MME per day per patient prescribed opioids. LIMITATIONS: Results may not be generalizable to non-commercially insured populations and were imprecise for some estimates. Use of claims data precluded assessment of the clinical appropriateness of pain treatments. CONCLUSION: This study did not identify changes in opioid prescribing or nonopioid pain treatment attributable to state laws. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Prospective assessment of patient-reported outcomes and estradiol and drug concentrations in patients experiencing toxicity from adjuvant aromatase inhibitors.

PURPOSE: Aromatase inhibitors (AI), which decrease circulating estradiol concentrations in post-menopausal women, are associated with toxicities that limit adherence. Approximately one-third of patients will tolerate a different AI after not tolerating the first. We report the effect of crossover from exemestane to letrozole or vice versa on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and whether the success of crossover is due to lack of estrogen suppression. METHODS: Post-menopausal women enrolled on a prospective trial initiating AI therapy for early-stage breast cancer were randomized to exemestane or letrozole. Those that discontinued for intolerance were offered protocol-directed crossover to the other AI after a washout period. Changes in PROs, including pain [Visual Analog Scale (VAS)] and functional status [Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ)], were compared after 3 months on the first versus the second AI. Estradiol and drug concentrations were measured. RESULTS: Eighty-three patients participated in the crossover protocol, of whom 91.3% reported improvement in symptoms prior to starting the second AI. Functional status worsened less after 3 months with the second AI (HAQ mean change AI #1: 0.2 [SD 0.41] vs. AI #2: -0.05 [SD 0.36]; p = 0.001); change in pain scores was similar between the first and second AI (VAS mean change AI #1: 0.8 [SD 2.7] vs. AI #2: -0.2 [SD 2.8]; p = 0.19). No statistical differences in estradiol or drug concentrations were found between those that continued or discontinued AI after crossover. CONCLUSIONS: Although all AIs act via the same mechanism, a subset of patients intolerant to one AI report improved PROs with a different one. The mechanism of this tolerance remains unknown, but does not appear to be due to non-adherence to, or insufficient estrogen suppression by, the second AI.