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.

A harm reduction model to assess the impact of new treatments for pain over standard of care among patients with osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) affects millions of adults in the United States and can result in substantial pain, functional impairment, and significant clinical and economic burden. To manage chronic pain associated with OA, treatment guidelines recommend a variety of pharmacologic treatments, including traditional oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors (COX-2s), and opioids. While these drug treatments can be effective at pain management, they are also associated with significant clinical and economic burden. New treatments for chronic pain among patients with OA of the hip and/or knee have the potential to reduce the occurrence of such negative clinical outcomes, including cardiovascular events, renal events, and opioid use disorder (OUD), thereby reducing health care resource use (HRU) and medical costs. OBJECTIVE: To develop a harm reduction model (HRM) to assess potential reductions of negative clinical outcomes, HRU, and medical costs associated with the use of new treatments in place of oral NSAIDs, tramadol, and non-tramadol opioids among patients with OA of the hip and/or knee in the United States. METHODS: The HRM model integrated findings from the literature and inputs from a variety of sources, along with assumptions regarding potential ability of new treatments to replace existing treatments and market penetration into a unified framework to estimate outcomes and costs. The model outputs included estimated per-patient and population-level reductions in negative clinical outcomes associated with prescribing new treatments in place of oral NSAIDs or opioids along with number needed to treat (NNT) associated with new treatments. The model assumed that new treatments will primarily be used in place of non-tramadol opioids, but more modest adoption in place of oral NSAIDs and tramadol. RESULTS: Among patients with OA of the hip and/or knee who were prescribed oral NSAIDs, tramadol, or non-tramadol opioids for chronic use (≥ 90 days), the HRM estimated total cost savings of $3.8 billion, $5.1 billion, and $29.9 billion, respectively, from prescribing new treatments for OA pain over a 36-month period. The reduced economic burden was driven by significant reductions in the incidence of negative clinical outcomes. Estimates of the NNT to avoid a negative clinical event related to NSAID and opioid treatment initiation were low for most outcomes. Estimates of NNT associated with NSAID use ranged from 4 to 17 patients, depending on outcome, and estimates of NNT associated with opioid use was 35 non-tramadol and 134 tramadol patients for OUD and ranged from 6 to 21 patients for the other clinical outcomes, depending on treatment and outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Results from the HRM suggest that prescribing new treatments in place of oral NSAIDs and/or opioids for OA pain results in a potentially substantial reduction in patients experiencing negative clinical outcomes and reductions in all-cause HRU and costs. DISCLOSURES: This study was sponsored by Pfizer and Eli Lilly and Company. Silverman was a paid consultant to Pfizer and Eli Lilly and Company in connection with this study. Beck and Schepman are employees of Pfizer with stock and/or stock options. Robinson is an employee and minor stockholder of Eli Lilly and Company. Rice, White, and Fernan are employees of the Analysis Group, who were paid consultants to Pfizer and Eli Lilly and Company for this study and development of the manuscript.

Risk of Thromboembolic Events and Associated Risk Factors, Including Treatments, in Patients with Immune-mediated Diseases.

PURPOSE: This study assessed the association between thromboembolic events (TEs) and immune-mediated diseases (IMDs) and characterized the risk profile of TEs among patients with IMDs. METHODS: An administrative claims database (2014-2018) was used to identify adults with ≥2 diagnoses on different dates for ≥1 IMD (IMD cohort; ankylosing spondylitis, atopic dermatitis, inflammatory bowel disease, multiple sclerosis, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and systemic lupus erythematosus); patients without an IMD diagnosis were assigned to the non-IMD cohort. Patients in the IMD cohort were matched 1:1 to patients in the non-IMD cohort on age, sex, and index date. Incremental risk of TE (ie, deep vein thrombosis [DVT], pulmonary embolism [PE], myocardial infarction [MI], and ischemic stroke [IS]) was assessed using adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRRs) to control for covariates in both cohorts. Risk factors for TEs were assessed in the IMD cohort and included age, female sex, comorbidities, baseline TEs, non-IMD treatments, and IMD treatments. FINDINGS: A total of 182,431 patients were included in each cohort (mean age, [51.3] years; 64.3% female). A higher proportion of patients in the IMD cohort versus the non-IMD cohort had ≥1 baseline TE (4.1% vs 2.7%; P < 0.0001). The IMD cohort had a 1.80 (95% CI, 1.68-1.92; P < 0.0001) times higher rate of TEs versus patients in the non-IMD cohort. After adjustments, patients in the IMD cohort had a 1.49 (95% CI, 1.40-1.59; P < 0.0001) times higher rate of TEs versus patients in the non-IMD cohort. Similar results were observed across individual TEs (DVT: aIRR = 1.78; PE: aIRR = 1.66; MI: aIRR = 1.17; IS: aIRR = 1.35; all P < 0.05). Risk factor profiles varied by TE. The greatest risk factor was respective TE during baseline (eg, patients with baseline DVT had 41.1 times the rate of DVT during the study period vs patients without baseline DVT; P < 0.001). Comorbidities, such as cardiovascular diseases, type 2 diabetes, and peripheral vascular disease, were associated with increased rates of MI (IRR = 2.60, 1.30, and 1.54, respectively; all P < 0.05) and IS (IRR = 1.53, 1.54, and 1.24, respectively; all P < 0.05). Janus kinase inhibitors were associated with an increased rate of PE (IRR = 2.52; P < 0.05) and nonsignificant, numerically higher rates of DVT (IRR = 1.23; P = NS) and IS (IRR = 1.82; P = NS). Sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor modulators were associated with decreased rates of TEs (DVT: IRR = 0.61, P = NS; PE: IRR = 0.30, P = NS; MI: IRR = 0.54, P = NS; IS: IRR = 0.33, P < 0.05). IMPLICATIONS: The risk of TEs was higher among patients with IMD versus patients without IMD; several factors may affect this risk.

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.

Health Halo Effects from Product Titles and Nutrient Content Claims in the Context of "Protein" Bars.

Research on front-of-package (FOP) labeling demonstrates that nutrient content claims (e.g., "low fat") can lead consumers to perceive foods as healthier in general-effects that have been interpreted using halo effect theories of impression formation. Extending this work, the present study investigates whether these effects may depend on whether nutrient information comes in the form of a nutrient content claim ("good source of protein") or embedded within the product title itself ("protein" bar)-an important question given the popularity of energy/nutrition bars and ongoing policy debates over food-labeling regulation. Results from a between-subjects experiment (n = 274) revealed that although both conditions increased perceived protein content for a nutritional bar, only the product title condition increased overall perceptions of product healthfulness-an effect mediated by increased perceptions of additional non-claimed "healthy" nutrients (fiber, iron). Finally, although the presence of a traffic light warning label increased perceived sugar and calorie content, it did not counteract the effect of the product title on perceived healthfulness. We conclude with a discussion focused on implications for policy and health halo effects in the context of food labeling.