Opioid analgesic prescribing for opioid-naïve individuals prior to identification of opioid use disorder in British Columbia, Canada.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Prescription opioid analgesics have contributed to the development of opioid use disorder (OUD) in many individuals. We aimed to characterize non-cancer opioid prescribing for opioid-naive individuals prior to OUD identification. DESIGN: Population-based retrospective cohort study using six linked health administrative databases. SETTING: British Columbia (BC), Canada. PARTICIPANTS: People with OUD between 1 January 2001 and 30 September 2018 who initiated opioid analgesic therapy for non-cancer pain prior to OUD identification. MEASUREMENTS: Dose (morphine milligram equivalent per day), days prescribed and clinical guideline non-concordance for initial opioid prescriptions (dose ≥ 90 morphine milligram equivalent per day; ≥ 7 days prescribed; concomitant sedative prescription). We estimated the probability of non-concordant initial prescriptions by source (inpatient post-discharge, non-inpatient acute, non-acute) using logistic regression, adjusting for individual characteristics and comorbidities. FINDINGS: Among 66 372 individuals identified with OUD from 2001 to 2018, 21 331 (32.1%) received opioid analgesics prior to OUD identification. This proportion increased from 3.0% in 2001 to 41.0% in 2011, before decreasing to 34.2% in 2017. Roughly half of opioid prescriptions were attributed to non-acute care visits, peaking at 56.8% in 2007, while the proportion from inpatient visits increased from 19.7% in 2001 to 28.5% in 2017. The predicted probability of receiving non-guideline concordant prescriptions declined over time-periods across all three measures for inpatient and non-inpatient acute care, while remaining stable for non-acute care. In particular, the predicted probability of receiving ≥ 7-day prescriptions following inpatient visits decreased from 53.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 50.9, 55.8%] in 2001-06 to 37.2% (95% CI = 33.9, 40.5%) in 2013-18. CONCLUSIONS: Among the 66 372 individuals in British Columbia, Canada diagnosed with opioid use disorder between 2001 and 2018, more than 32% were earlier prescribed non-cancer opioid analgesics. The proportion who had received an opioid analgesic prescription prior to OUD identification peaked at more than 40% in 2011, before stabilizing between 2011 and 2016 and declining thereafter. Guideline concordance improved over time for high-dose and concomitant sedative prescribing.

Comparative effectiveness of buprenorphine-naloxone versus methadone for treatment of opioid use disorder: a population-based observational study protocol in British Columbia, Canada.

INTRODUCTION: Despite a recent meta-analysis including 31 randomised controlled trials comparing methadone and buprenorphine for the treatment of opioid use disorder, important knowledge gaps remain regarding the long-term effectiveness of different treatment modalities across individuals, including rigorously collected data on retention rates and other treatment outcomes. Evidence from real-world data represents a valuable opportunity to improve personalised treatment and patient-centred guidelines for vulnerable populations and inform strategies to reduce opioid-related mortality. Our objective is to determine the comparative effectiveness of methadone versus buprenorphine/naloxone, both overall and within key populations, in a setting where both medications are simultaneously available in office-based practices and specialised clinics. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We propose a retrospective cohort study of all adults living in British Columbia receiving opioid agonist treatment (OAT) with methadone or buprenorphine/naloxone between 1 January 2008 and 30 September 2018. The study will draw on seven linked population-level administrative databases. The primary outcomes include retention in OAT and all-cause mortality. We will determine the effectiveness of buprenorphine/naloxone vs methadone using intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses-the former emulating flexible-dose trials and the latter focusing on the comparison of the two medication regimens offered at the optimal dose. Sensitivity analyses will be used to assess the robustness of results to heterogeneity in the patient population and threats to internal validity. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol, cohort creation and analysis plan have been approved and classified as a quality improvement initiative exempt from ethical review (Providence Health Care Research Institute and the Simon Fraser University Office of Research Ethics). Dissemination is planned via conferences and publications, and through direct engagement and collaboration with entities that issue clinical guidelines, such as professional medical societies and public health organisations.