Evaluation of Buprenorphine Rotation in Patients Receiving Long-term Opioids for Chronic Pain: A Systematic Review.

Importance: Individuals with chronic pain who use long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) are at risk of opioid use disorder and other harmful outcomes. Rotation to buprenorphine may be considered, but the outcomes of such rotation in this population have not been systematically reviewed. Objective: To synthesize the evidence on rotation to buprenorphine from full µ-opioid receptor agonists among individuals with chronic pain who were receiving LTOT, including the outcomes of precipitated opioid withdrawal, pain intensity, pain interference, treatment success, adverse events or adverse effects, mental health condition, and health care use. Evidence Review: PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycInfo were searched from inception through November 3, 2020, for peer-reviewed original English-language research that reported the prespecified outcomes of rotation from prescribed long-term opioids to buprenorphine among individuals with chronic pain. Two independent reviewers extracted data as well as assessed risk of bias and study quality according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines. Quality of evidence was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Findings: A total of 22 studies were analyzed, of which 5 (22.7%) were randomized clinical trials, 7 (31.8%) were case-control or cohort studies, and 10 (45.5%) were uncontrolled pre-post studies, which involved 1616 unique participants (675 female [41.8%] and 941 male [58.2%] individuals). Six of the 22 studies (27.3%) were primary or secondary analyses of a large randomized clinical trial. Participants had diverse pain and opioid use histories. Rationale for buprenorphine rotation included inadequate analgesia, intolerable adverse effects, risky opioid regimens (eg, high dose and/or sedative coprescriptions), and aberrant opioid use. Most protocols were adapted from protocols for initiating treatment in patients with opioid use disorder and used buccal or sublingual buprenorphine. Very low-quality evidence suggested that buprenorphine rotation was associated with maintained or improved analgesia, with a low risk of precipitating opioid withdrawal. Steady-dose buprenorphine was better tolerated than tapered-dose buprenorphine. Adverse effects were manageable, and severe adverse events were rare. Only 2 studies evaluated mental health outcomes, but none evaluated health care use. Limitations included a high risk of bias in most studies. Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review, buprenorphine was associated with reduced chronic pain intensity without precipitating opioid withdrawal in individuals with chronic pain who were receiving LTOT. Future studies are necessary to ascertain the ideal starting dose, formulation, and administration frequency of buprenorphine as well as the best approach to buprenorphine rotation.

Identifying individuals with opioid use disorder: Validity of International Classification of Diseases diagnostic codes for opioid use, dependence and abuse.

BACKGROUND: Policy evaluations and health system interventions often utilize International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes of opioid use, dependence, and abuse to identify individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) and assess receipt of evidence-based treatments. However, ICD codes may not map directly onto the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder (DSM-5) OUD criteria. This study investigates the positive predictive value of ICD codes in identifying patients with OUD. METHODS: We conducted a clinical chart review on a national sample of 520 Veterans assigned ICD-9 or ICD-10 codes for opioid use, dependence, or abuse from 2012 to 2017. We extracted evidence of DSM-5 OUD criteria and opioid misuse from clinical documentation in the month preceding and three months following initial ICD code listing, and categorized patients into: 1) high likelihood of OUD, 2) limited aberrant opioid use, 3) prescribed opioid use without evidence of aberrant use, and 4) insufficient information. Positive predictive value was calculated as the percentage of individuals with these ICD codes meeting high likelihood of OUD criteria upon chart review. RESULTS: Only 57.7 % of patients were categorized as high likelihood of OUD; 16.5 % were categorized as limited aberrant opioid use, 18.9 % prescribed opioid use without evidence of aberrant use, and 6.9 % insufficient information. CONCLUSIONS: Patients assigned ICD codes for opioid use, dependence, or abuse often lack documentation of meeting OUD criteria. Many receive long-term opioid therapy for chronic pain without evidence of misuse. Robust methods of identifying individuals with OUD are crucial to improving access to clinically appropriate treatment.

Access to Primary Care Clinics for Patients With Chronic Pain Receiving Opioids.

Importance: Opioid-prescribing policies and guidelines aimed at reducing inappropriate opioid prescribing may lead physicians to stop prescribing opioids. Patients may thus encounter difficulties finding primary care practitioners willing to care for them if they take opioids. Objectives: To assess practitioner willingness to accept and continue prescribing opioids to new patients with pain and whether this willingness differs across payer types. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study used a simulated patient call audit method. A brief telephone survey was administered to all clinics followed by a call using a patient script simulating an adult patient with chronic pain who was taking long-term opioids. The patient had Medicaid or private insurance. Calls were made between June 22 and October 30, 2018, to 667 primary care clinics that served a general adult population in Michigan. Clinics that accepted both Medicaid and private insurance, took new patient appointments, and were successfully recontacted for the simulated call were eligible for the study. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prevalence of clinics' acceptance of new patients receiving prescription opioids overall and by clinic characteristics and insurance type. Results: Of the 194 eligible clinics, 94 (48.4%) were randomized according to insurance type to receive calls from research assistants posing as children of patients with Medicaid and 100 (51.5%) to receive calls from those with private insurance. Overall, 79 (40.7%) stated that their practitioners would not prescribe opioids to the simulated patient. Thirty-three clinics (17.0%) requested more information before making a decision. Compared with single-practitioner clinics, clinics with more than 3 practitioners were more likely (odds ratio [OR], 2.99; 95% CI, 1.48-6.04) to accept new patients currently taking opioids. No difference was found in access based on insurance status (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.52-1.64) or whether the clinic offered medications for opioid use disorders (OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.45-2.69). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings suggest that access to primary care may be reduced for patients taking prescription opioids, which could lead to unintended consequences, such as conversion to illicit substances or reduced management of other medical comorbidities.