Reasons for Preoperative Opioid Use Are Associated with Persistent Use following Surgery Among Patients Undergoing Total Knee and Hip Arthroplasty.

OBJECTIVE: Most studies on preoperative opioid use only describe whether or not patients use opioids without characterizing reasons for use. Knowing why patients use opioids can help inform perioperative opioid management. The objective of this study was to explore pain specific reasons for preoperative opioid use prior to total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA and TKA) and their association with persistent use. METHODS: This is a prospective study of 197 patients undergoing THA (n = 99) or TKA (n = 98) enrolled in the Analgesic Outcomes Study between December 2015 and November 2018. All participants reported preoperative opioid use. RESULTS: Reasons for preoperative opioid use were categorized as surgical site pain only (81 [41.1%]); pain in other body areas only (22 [11.2%]); and combined pain (94 [47.7%]). Compared to patients taking opioids for surgical site pain, those with combined reasons for use had 1.24 (P = .40) and 2.28 (P = .16) greater odds of persistent use at 3 and 6 months postoperatively, adjusting for relevant covariates. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides novel insights into the heterogeneity of reasons for presurgical opioid use in patients undergoing a THA or TKA. One key take away is that not all preoperative opioid use is the same and many patients are taking opioids preoperatively for more than just pain at the surgical site. Combined reasons for use was associated with long-term use, suggesting nonsurgical pain, in part, drives persistent opioid use after surgery. Future directions in perioperative care should focus on pain and non-pain reasons for presurgical opioid use to create tailored postoperative opioid weaning plans.

Treatment provider perceptions of take-home methadone regulation before and during COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The loosening of U.S. methadone regulations during the COVID-19 pandemic expanded calls for methadone reform. This study examines professional perceptions of methadone take-home dose regulation before and during the COVID-19 pandemic to understand responses to varied methadone distribution policies. METHODS: Fifty-nine substance use disorder treatment professionals were interviewed between 2017 and 2020 in-person or over video call. An inductive iterative coding process was used to analyze the data. Constructivist grounded theory guided the collection and analysis of in-depth interviews. RESULTS: Treatment professionals expressed mixed views toward methadone take-home regulations. Participants justified regulation using several arguments: 1) patient care benefitting from supervision, 2) attributing improved patient safety to take-home regulation, 3) fearing liability for methadone-related harms, and 4) relying on buprenorphine as an "escape hatch" for patients who cannot manage MMT policies. Other professionals suggested partial deregulation, while others strongly opposed pre-pandemic take-home regulation, explaining such regulations impede medication access and hinder patient-centered care. Some professionals supported the COVID-19 policy changes and saw these as a test run for broader deregulation, while others framed the changes as temporary and cautiously applied deregulation to their services, at times revoking looser rules for patients they perceived as nonadherent. CONCLUSION: Treatment professionals working in a range of modalities, including opioid treatment programs, expressed hesitation toward expanded take-home methadone access. While some participants also supported forms of deregulation, post-pandemic efforts to extend looser methadone distribution policies will have to address apprehensive professionals if such policy changes are to be meaningfully adopted in community services.

Impact of Prescribing on New Persistent Opioid Use After Cardiothoracic Surgery.

BACKGROUND: New persistent opioid use occurs in 3% to 14% of patients after elective surgery, but is poorly described after cardiothoracic surgery. We examined the association of prescription size with new persistent opioid use after cardiothoracic surgery. METHODS: Opioid-naive Medicare patients undergoing cardiothoracic surgery between 2009 and 2015 were identified. Patients who filled an opioid prescription between 30 days before surgery and 14 days after discharge and with continuous Medicare enrollment 12 months before and 6 months after surgery were selected (n = 24,549). New persistent use was defined as continued prescription fills 91 to 180 days after surgery. Prescription size was reported in oral morphine equivalents. Multivariable regression was performed for risk adjustment, and new persistent use rate was estimated. RESULTS: Patient age was 71 ± 8 years, 9222 (38%) were female, and 20,898 (85%) were white. Overall new persistent use was 12.8% (3153 of 24,549), and declined yearly from 17% in 2009 to 7.1% in 2015 (P < .001). Prescription size, preoperative prescription fills, black race, gastrointestinal complications, disability status, open lung resection, dual eligibility (Medicare and Medicaid), drug and substance abuse, female sex, tobacco use, high comorbidity, pain disorders, longer hospital stay, and younger age were associated with new persistent use. Adjusted new persistent use was 19.6% (95% confidence interval, 18.7% to 20.4%) among patients prescribed more than 450 oral morphine equivalents, compared with 10.4% (95% confidence interval, 9.9% to 10.8%) among those prescribed 200 oral morphine equivalents or less (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Size and timing of perioperative opioid prescriptions were the strongest predictors of new persistent opioid use after cardiothoracic surgery. Modifiable risk factors such as prescription size should be targeted to reduce new persistent use.

Opioid Prescribing After Opioid-related Inpatient Hospitalizations by Diagnosis: A Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Any opioid-related hospitalization is an indicator of opioid-related harm and should ideally trigger carefully monitored decreases in opioid prescribing after inpatient stays in many, if not most, cases. However, past studies on opioid prescribing after hospitalizations have largely been limited to overdose related visits. It is unclear whether prescribing is different for other opioid-related indications such as opioid dependence and abuse and how that may compare with hospitalizations for overdose. OBJECTIVE: To examine opioid-prescribing patterns before and after opioid-related hospitalizations for all opioid-related indications, not limited to overdose. RESEARCH DESIGN: Retrospective cohort analysis of Veterans Health Administration (VHA) administrative claims from 2011 to 2014. SUBJECTS: VHA patients who were hospitalized between fiscal years 2011 and 2014 and had at least 1 prescription opioid medication filled through the VHA pharmacy before their hospitalization. MEASURES: Opioid dispensing trajectories after hospitalization by opioid-related indication (ie, opioid dependence and/or abuse vs. overdose) compared with prescribing patterns for non-opioid-related hospitalizations. RESULTS: Overall, opioid dosage dropped significantly (66% for dependence/abuse, 42% for overdose, and 3% for nonopioid diagnoses; P<0.001) across all 3 categories when comparing dose 57-63 days after admission to 57-63 days before hospitalization. However, 47% of the patients remained on the same dose or increased their opioid dose at 60 days after an opioid-related hospitalization. After adjusting for covariates, patients with a primary diagnosis of dependence/abuse had higher odds of having their dose discontinued compared with those with overdose: odds ratio (OR) 2.17 (1.19-3.96). Patients with admissions for opioid dependence and/or abuse had a statistically significant higher prevalence of depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and substance use disorders compared with those with an opioid overdose hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Opioid prescribing and patient risk factors before and after opioid-related hospitalizations vary by indication for hospitalization. To reduce costs and morbidity associated with opioid-related hospitalizations, opioid deintensification efforts need to be tailored to indication for hospitalization.

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.

Postoperative opioid prescribing is not my job: A qualitative analysis of care transitions.

BACKGROUND: Persistent opioid use is common after surgical procedures, and postoperative opioid prescribing often transitions from surgeons to primary care physicians in the months after surgery. It is unknown how surgeons currently transition these patients or the preferred approach to successful coordination of care. This qualitative study aimed to describe transitions of care for postoperative opioid prescribing and identify barriers and facilitators of ideal transitions for potential intervention targets. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study of surgeons and primary care physicians at a large academic healthcare system using a semi-structured interview guide. Transcripts were independently coded using the Theoretical Domains Framework to identify underlying determinants of physician behaviors. We mapped dominant themes to the Behavior Change Wheel to propose potential interventions targeting these behaiors. RESULTS: Physicians were interviewed between July 2017 and December 2017 beyond thematic saturation (n = 20). Surgeons report passive transitions to primary care physicians after ruling out surgical complications, and these patients often bounce back to the surgeon when primary care physicians are uncertain of the cause of ongoing pain. Ideal practices were identified as setting preoperative expectations and engaging in active transition for postoperative opioid prescribing. We identified 3 behavioral targets for multidisciplinary intervention: knowledge (guidelines for coordination of care), barriers (utilizing support staff for active transition), and professional role (incentive for multidisciplinary collaboration). CONCLUSION: This qualitative study identifies potential interventions aimed at changing physician behaviors regarding transitions of care for postoperative opioid prescribing. Implementation of these interventions could improve coordination of care for patients with persistent postoperative opioid use.

Factors Associated With New Persistent Opioid Usage After Lung Resection.

BACKGROUND: Opioid dependence, misuse, and abuse in the United States continue to rise. Prior studies indicate an important risk factor for persistent opioid use includes elective surgical procedures, though the probability following thoracic procedures remains unknown. We analyzed the incidence and factors associated with new persistent opioid use after lung resection. METHODS: We evaluated data from opioid-naïve cancer patients undergoing lung resection between 2010 and 2014 using insurance claims from the Truven Health MarketScan Databases. New persistent opioid usage was defined as continued opioid prescription fills between 90 and 180 days following surgery. Variables with a p value less than 0.10 by univariate analysis were included in a multivariable logistic regression performed for risk adjustment. Multivariable results were each reported with odds ratio (OR) and confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: A total of 3,026 patients (44.8% men, 55.2% women) were identified as opioid-naïve undergoing lung resection. Mean age was 64 ± 11 years and mean postoperative length of stay was 5.2 ± 3.3 days. A total of 6.5% underwent neoadjuvant therapy, while 21.7% underwent adjuvant therapy. Among opioid-naïve patients, 14% continued to fill opioid prescriptions following lung resection. Multivariable analysis showed that age less than or equal to 64 years (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.59; p = 0.028), male sex (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.73; p = 0.002), postoperative length of stay (OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.65; p = 0.016), thoracotomy (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.24 to 2.02; p < 0.001), and adjuvant therapy (OR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.75 to 2.75; p < 0.001) were independent risk factors for persistent opioid usage. CONCLUSIONS: The greatest risk factors for persistent opioid use (14%) following lung resection were adjuvant therapy and thoracotomy. Future studies should focus on reducing excess prescribing, perioperative patient education, and safe opioid disposal.

Transitions of Care for Postoperative Opioid Prescribing in Previously Opioid-Naïve Patients in the USA: a Retrospective Review.

BACKGROUND: New persistent opioid use is a common postoperative complication, with 6% of previously opioid-naïve patients continuing to fill opioid prescriptions 3-6 months after surgery. Despite these risks, it is unknown which specialties prescribe opioids to these vulnerable patients. OBJECTIVE: To identify specialties prescribing opioids to surgical patients who develop new persistent opioid use. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Using a national dataset of insurance claims, we identified opioid-naïve patients aged 18-64 years undergoing surgical procedures (2008-2014) who continued filling opioid prescriptions 3 to 6 months after surgery. We then examined opioid prescriptions claims during the 12 months after surgery, and identified prescribing physician specialty using National Provider Identifier codes. MAIN MEASURES: Percentage of opioid prescriptions provided by each specialty evaluated at 90-day intervals during the 12 months after surgery. KEY RESULTS: We identified 5276 opioid-naïve patients who developed new persistent opioid use. During the first 3 months after surgery, surgeons accounted for 69% of opioid prescriptions, primary care physicians accounted for 13%, Emergency Medicine accounted for 2%, Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation (PM&R)/Pain Medicine accounted for 1%, and all other specialties accounted for 15%. In contrast, 9 to 12 months after surgery, surgeons accounted for only 11% of opioid prescriptions, primary care physicians accounted for 53%, Emergency Medicine accounted for 5%, PM&R/Pain Medicine accounted for 6%, and all other specialties provided 25%. CONCLUSIONS: Among surgical patients who developed new persistent opioid use, surgeons provide the majority of opioid prescriptions during the first 3 months after surgery. By 9 to 12 months after surgery, however, the majority of opioid prescriptions were provided by primary care physicians. Enhanced care coordination between surgeons and primary care physicians could allow earlier identification of patients at risk for new persistent opioid use to prevent misuse and dependence.

Policy Pathways to Address Provider Workforce Barriers to Buprenorphine Treatment.

At least 2.3 million people in the U.S. have an opioid use disorder, less than 40% of whom receive evidence-based treatment. Buprenorphine used as part of medication-assisted treatment has high potential to address this gap because of its approval for use in non-specialty outpatient settings, effectiveness at promoting abstinence, and cost effectiveness. However, less than 4% of licensed physicians are approved to prescribe buprenorphine for opioid use disorder, and approximately 47% of counties lack a buprenorphine-waivered physician. Existing policies contribute to workforce barriers to buprenorphine provision and access. Providers are reticent to prescribe buprenorphine because of workforce barriers, such as (1) insufficient training and education on opioid use disorder treatment, (2) lack of institutional and clinician peer support, (3) poor care coordination, (4) provider stigma, (5) inadequate reimbursement from private and public insurers, and (6) regulatory hurdles to obtain the waiver needed to prescribe buprenorphine in non-addiction specialty treatment settings. Policy pathways to addressing these provider workforce barriers going forward include providing free and easy-to-access education for providers about opioid use disorders and medication-assisted treatment, eliminating buprenorphine waiver requirements for those licensed to prescribe controlled substances, enforcing insurance parity requirements, requiring coverage of evidence-based medication-assisted treatment as essential health benefits, and providing financial incentives for care coordination across healthcare professional types-including behavioral health counselors and other non-physicians in specialty and non-specialty settings. SUPPLEMENT INFORMATION: This article is part of a supplement entitled The Behavioral Health Workforce: Planning, Practice, and Preparation, which is sponsored by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and the Health Resources and Services Administration of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Culturally Targeted Strategies for Diabetes Prevention in Minority Population.

Purpose The purpose of this study is to (a) assess the effectiveness of culturally tailored diabetes prevention interventions in minority populations and (b) develop a novel framework to characterize 4 key domains of culturally tailored interventions. Prevention strategies specifically tailored to the culture of ethnic minority patients may help reduce the incidence of diabetes. Methods We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL for English-language, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-experimental (QE) trials testing culturally tailored interventions to prevent diabetes in minority populations. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Inductive thematic analysis was used to develop a framework with 4 domains (FiLLM: Facilitating [ie, delivering] Interventions Through Language, Location, and Message). The framework was used to assess the overall effectiveness of culturally tailored interventions. Results Thirty-four trials met eligibility criteria. Twelve studies were RCTs, and 22 were QE trials. Twenty-five out of 34 studies (74%) that used cultural tailoring demonstrated significantly improved A1C, fasting glucose, and/or weight loss. Of the 25 successful interventions, 21 (84%) incorporated at least 3 culturally targeted domains. Seven studies used all 4 domains and were all successful. The least utilized domain was delivery (4/34) of the intervention's key educational message. Conclusions Culturally tailoring interventions across the 4 domains of facilitators, language, location, and messaging can be effective in improving risk factors for progression to diabetes among ethnic minority groups. Future studies should evaluate how specific tailoring approaches work compared to usual care as well as comparative effectiveness of each tailoring domain.

Neighborhood Social Cohesion and Prevalence of Hypertension and Diabetes in a South Asian Population.

South Asians have a high burden of cardiovascular disease compared to other racial/ethnic groups in the United States. Little has been done to evaluate how neighborhood environments may influence cardiovascular risk factors including hypertension and type 2 diabetes in this immigrant population. We evaluated the association of perceived neighborhood social cohesion with hypertension and type 2 diabetes among 906 South Asian adults who participated in the Mediators of Atherosclerosis in South Asians Living in America Study. Multivariable logistic regression adjusted for demographic, socioeconomic, psychosocial, and physiologic covariates. Subgroup analyses examined whether associations differed by gender. South Asian women living in neighborhoods with high social cohesion had 46 % reduced odds of having hypertension than those living in neighborhoods with low social cohesion (OR 0.54, 95 % CI 0.30-0.99). Future research should determine if leveraging neighborhood social cohesion prevents hypertension in South Asian women.