Screening to identify signals of opioid drug interactions leading to unintentional traumatic injury.

BACKGROUND: Efforts to minimize harms from opioid drug interactions may be hampered by limited evidence on which drugs, when taken concomitantly with opioids, result in adverse clinical outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To identify signals of opioid drug interactions by identifying concomitant medications (precipitant drugs) taken with individual opioids (object drugs) that are associated with unintentional traumatic injury DESIGN: We conducted pharmacoepidemiologic screening of Optum Clinformatics Data Mart, identifying drug interaction signals by performing confounder-adjusted self-controlled case series studies for opioid + precipitant pairs and injury. SETTING: Beneficiaries of a major United States-based commercial health insurer during 2000-2015 PATIENTS: Persons aged 16-90 years co-dispensed an opioid and ≥1 precipitant drug(s), with an unintentional traumatic injury event during opioid therapy, as dictated by the case-only design EXPOSURE: Precipitant-exposed (vs. precipitant-unexposed) person-days during opioid therapy. OUTCOME: Emergency department or inpatient International Classification of Diseases discharge diagnosis for unintentional traumatic injury. We used conditional Poisson regression to generate confounder adjusted rate ratios. We accounted for multiple estimation via semi-Bayes shrinkage. RESULTS: We identified 25,019, 12,650, and 10,826 new users of hydrocodone, tramadol, and oxycodone who experienced an unintentional traumatic injury. Among 464, 376, and 389 hydrocodone-, tramadol-, and oxycodone-precipitant pairs examined, 20, 17, and 16 (i.e., 53 pairs, 34 unique precipitants) were positively associated with unintentional traumatic injury and deemed potential drug interaction signals. Adjusted rate ratios ranged from 1.23 (95 % confidence interval: 1.05-1.44) for hydrocodone + amoxicillin-clavulanate to 4.21 (1.88-9.42) for oxycodone + telmisartan. Twenty (37.7 %) of 53 signals are currently reported in a major drug interaction knowledgebase. LIMITATIONS: Potential for reverse causation, confounding by indication, and chance CONCLUSIONS: We identified previously undescribed and/or unappreciated signals of opioid drug interactions associated with unintentional traumatic injury. Subsequent etiologic studies should confirm (or refute) and elucidate these potential drug interactions.

Resource utilization for non-operative cervical radiculopathy: Management by surgeons versus non-surgeons.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the estimated resource utilization for non-operative treatment of cervical radiculopathy if managed by surgeons versus non-surgeons. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A Cervical Spine Research Society-sponsored survey was administered at a national spine surgery conference to surgeons and non-surgeons, as classified above. The survey asked questions regarding resource utilization and perceived costs for the "average patient" with cervical radiculopathy managed non-operatively. Resource utilization and perceived costs were compared between surgeon and non-surgeon participants, and between private practice and academic and/or hybrid groups that combine academic and private practices. RESULTS: In total, 101 of the 125 conference attendees participated in the survey (return rate 80.8%, of which 60% were surgeons). Surgeon and non-surgeon estimates for duration of non-operative care did not differ (3.3 versus 4.2 months, p=0.071). Estimates also did not differ for estimated number of physical therapy visits (10.5 versus 10.5, p=0.983), cervical injections (1.4 versus 1.7, p=0.272), chiropractic visits (3.1 versus 3.7, p=0.583), or perceived days off from work (14.9 versus 16.3, p=0.816). The only difference identified was that surgeon estimates of the number of physician visits while providing non-operative care were lower than non-surgeon estimates (3.2 versus 4.0, p=0.018). In terms of estimated costs, surgeon and non-surgeon were mostly similar (only difference being that surgeon estimates for the total cost of physician visits per patient were lower than non-surgeon estimates ($382 versus $579, p=0.007). Surgeon estimates for the percent of their patients that go on to receive surgery within 6 months were higher than non-surgeon estimates (28.6% versus 18.8%, p=0.018). Similarly, surgeon estimates for the percent of their patients to go on to receive surgery within 2 years were higher than non-surgeon estimates (37.8% versus 24.8%, p=0.013). Academic/hybrid and private practice group resource utilization estimates and costs were also compared, and no significant differences were found in any comparisons. Additionally, no significant differences were found in these groups for duration of non-operative care, or the estimates of the percent of patients who go on to receive surgery within 6 months or two years. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that patients with cervical radiculopathy managed by surgeons and those by non-surgeons have overall similar resource utilization during a non-operative trial. This suggests that relatively similar care is provided regardless of whom initiates the non-operative trial (surgeon or non-surgeon). Although surgeons thought their patients more likely to undergo surgery following a non-operative trial, this may be a bias due to patient referral-specifically, surgeons may be more likely than non-surgeons to manage patients with more severe or longer-standing radiculopathy.