Use of CYP2D6 Inhibitors with CYP2D6 Opioids: Association with Emergency Department Visits for Pain.

Hydrocodone, tramadol, codeine, and oxycodone are commonly prescribed opioids that rely on activation by cytochrome P450 2D6 (CYP2D6). CYP2D6 inhibitors can significantly decrease CYP2D6 activity, leading to reduced generation of active metabolites, and impairing pain control. To understand this impact, we assessed emergency department (ED) visits in patients initiating these CYP2D6-dependent opioids while on CYP2D6-inhibitor antidepressants vs. antidepressants that do not inhibit CYP2D6. This retrospective cohort study included adult patients prescribed CYP2D6-dependent opioids utilizing electronic health records data from the University of Florida Health (2015-2021). The association between ED visits and inhibitor exposure was tested using multivariable logistic regression. The primary analysis had 12,118 patients (72% female; mean (SD) age, 55 (13.4)) in the hydrocodone/tramadol/codeine cohort and 5,547 patients (64% female; mean (SD) age, 53.6 (14.2)) in the oxycodone cohort. Hydrocodone/tramadol/codeine-treated patients exposed to CYP2D6-inhibitor antidepressants (n = 7,043) had a higher crude rate of pain-related ED visits than those taking other antidepressants (n = 5,075) (3.28% vs. 1.87%), with an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 1.75 (95% CI: 1.36 to 2.24). Similarly, in the oxycodone cohort, CYP2D6-inhibitor antidepressant-exposed individuals (n = 3,206) had a higher crude rate of ED visits than individuals exposed to other antidepressants (n = 2,341) (5.02% vs. 3.37%), with aOR of 1.70 (95% CI: 1.27-2.27). Similar findings were observed in secondary and sensitivity analyses. Our findings suggest patients with concomitant use of hydrocodone/tramadol/codeine or oxycodone and CYP2D6 inhibitors have more frequent ED visits for pain, which may be due to inadequate pain control.

Short- and long-term safety of discontinuing chronic opioid therapy among older adults with Alzheimer's disease and related dementia.

BACKGROUND: Limited evidence exists on the short- and long-term safety of discontinuing versus continuing chronic opioid therapy (COT) among patients with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD). METHODS: This cohort study was conducted among 162,677 older residents with ADRD and receipt of COT using a 100% Medicare nursing home sample. Discontinuation of COT was defined as no opioid refills for ≥90 days. Primary outcomes were rates of pain-related hospitalisation, pain-related emergency department visit, injury, opioid use disorder (OUD) and opioid overdose (OD) measured by diagnosis codes at quarterly intervals during 1- and 2-year follow-ups. Poisson regression models were fit using generalised estimating equations with inverse probability of treatment weights to model quarterly outcome rates between residents who discontinued versus continued COT. RESULTS: The study sample consisted of 218,040 resident episodes with COT; of these episodes, 180,916 residents (83%) continued COT, whereas 37,124 residents (17%) subsequently discontinued COT. Discontinuing (vs. continuing) COT was associated with higher rates of all outcomes in the first quarter, but these associations attenuated over time. The adjusted rates of injury, OUD and OD were 0, 69 and 60% lower at the 1-year follow-up and 11, 81 and 79% lower at the 2-year follow-up, respectively, for residents who discontinued versus continued COT, with no difference in the adjusted rates of pain-related hospitalisations or emergency department visits. CONCLUSIONS: The rates of adverse outcomes were higher in the first quarter but lower or non-differential at 1-year and 2-year follow-ups between COT discontinuers versus continuers among older residents with ADRD.

Sociodemographic Characteristics of Adverse Event Reporting in the USA: An Ecologic Study.

INTRODUCTION: The Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) is a vital source of new drug safety information, but whether adverse event (AE) information collected from these systems adequately captures experiences of the overall United States (US) population is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To examine determinants of consumer AE reporting in the USA. METHODS: Five-year AE reporting rate per 100,000 residents per US county were calculated, mapped, and quartiled for AE reports received directly from consumers between 2011 and 2015. Associations between county-level sociodemographic factors obtained from County Health Rankings and AE reporting rates were evaluated using negative binomial regression. RESULTS: Reporting rates were variable across US counties with > 17.6 reports versus ≤ 5.5 reports/100,000 residents in the highest and lowest reporting quartile, respectively. Controlling for drug utilization, counties with higher reporting rates had higher proportions of individuals age ≥ 65 years (e.g., 2.4% reporting increase per 1% increase in individuals age > 65, incidence rate ratio (IRR): 1.024, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.017-1.030), higher proportions of females (IRR: 1.027, 95% CI 1.012-1.043), uninsured (IRR: 1.009, 95% CI 1.005-1.013), higher median log household incomes (IRR: 1.897, 95% CI 1.644-2.189) and more mental health providers per 100,000 residents (IRR: 1.003, 95% CI 1.001-1.004). Lower reporting was observed in counties with higher proportions of individuals age ≤ 18 years (IRR: 0.966, 95% CI 0.959-0.974), American Indian or Alaska Native individuals (IRR: 0.991, 95% CI 0.986-0.996), individuals not proficient in English (IRR: 0.978, 95% CI 0.965-0.991), and individuals residing in rural areas within a county (IRR: 0.998, 95% CI 0.997-0.998). CONCLUSIONS: Observed variations in consumer AE reporting may be related to sociodemographic factors and healthcare access. Because these factors may also correspond to AE susceptibility, voluntary AE reporting systems may be suboptimal for capturing emerging drug safety concerns among more vulnerable populations.

Prevalence and trend of central nervous system-active medication polypharmacy among US commercially insured adults with vs without early-onset dementia: a multi-year cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Limited data exist on the prevalence and trend of central nervous system (CNS)-active medication polypharmacy among adults with early-onset dementia (EOD) and whether these estimates differ for adults without EOD but with chronic pain, depression, or epilepsy, conditions managed by CNS-active medications. METHODS: A multi-year, cross-sectional study using 2012-2021 MarketScan Commercial Claims data was conducted among adults aged 30 to 64 years with EOD and those without EOD but having a diagnosis of chronic pain, depression, or epilepsy as comparison groups. For each disease cohort, the primary outcome was CNS-active medication polypharmacy defined as concurrent use of ≥ 3 CNS-active medications on the US Beers Criteria list that overlapped for > 30 consecutive days during 12 months following a randomly selected medical encounter with the disease diagnosis. A separate multivariate modified Poisson regression model was used to estimate time trends in CNS polypharmacy in each disease cohort. Differences in trend estimates between EOD and non-EOD disease cohorts were examined by an interaction between EOD status and yearly time. RESULTS: From 2013 to 2020, the annual crude prevalence of CNS polypharmacy was higher among adults with EOD (21.2%-25.0%) than adults with chronic pain (5.1%-5.9%), depression (14.8%-21.7%), or epilepsy (20.0%-22.3%). The adjusted annual prevalence of CNS polypharmacy among patients with EOD did not significantly change between 2013 and 2020 (adjusted prevalence rate ratio [aPRR], 0.94; 95% CI, 0.88-1.01), whereas a significant decreasing trend was observed among non-EOD cohorts with chronic pain (aPRR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.63-0.69), depression (aPRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.77-0.85), and epilepsy (aPRR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.83-0.89). The interaction analysis indicated that patients with epilepsy and depression (vs with EOD) had a decreasing probability of CNS-active medication polypharmacy over time (aPRR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.98-0.99]; P < .001 for interaction for both conditions). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of CNS polypharmacy among US commercially insured adults with EOD (vs without) was higher and remained unchanged from 2013 to 2021. Medication reviews of adults with EOD and CNS polypharmacy are needed to ensure that benefits outweigh risks associated with combined use of these treatments.

Pain intensity, physical function, and depressive symptoms associated with discontinuing long-term opioid therapy in older adults with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias.

INTRODUCTION: Limited evidence exists on the associations of discontinuing versus continuing long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) with pain intensity, physical function, and depression among patients with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD). METHODS: A cohort study among 138,059 older residents with mild-to-moderate ADRD and receipt of LTOT was conducted using a 100% Medicare nursing home sample. Discontinuation of LTOT was defined as no opioid refills for ≥ 60 days. Outcomes were worsening pain, physical function, and depression from baseline to quarterly assessments during 1- and 2-year follow-ups. RESULTS: The adjusted odds of worsening pain and depressive symptoms were 29% and 5% lower at the 1-year follow-up and 35% and 9% lower at the 2-year follow-up for residents who discontinued versus continued LTOT, with no difference in physical function. DISCUSSION: Discontinuing LTOT was associated with lower short- and long-term worsening pain and depressive symptoms than continuing LTOT among older residents with ADRD. HIGHLIGHTS: Discontinuing long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) was associated with lower short- and long-term worsening pain. Discontinuing LTOT was related to lower short- and long-term worsening depression. Discontinuing LTOT was not associated with short- and long-term physical function.

Trends in Dietary Vitamin A Intake Among US Adults by Race and Ethnicity, 2003-2018.

This study uses data from the 2003-2004 to 2017-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) to assess whether a difference exists in dietary vitamin A intake as a marker of consumption of vitamin A­rich foods among Black, Hispanic, and White adults in the US.

Association of injury after prescription opioid initiation with risk for opioid-related adverse events among older Medicare beneficiaries in the United States: A nested case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Injury, prevalent and potentially associated with prescription opioid use among older adults, has been implicated as a warning sign of serious opioid-related adverse events (ORAEs) including opioid misuse, dependence, and poisoning, but this association has not been empirically tested. The study aims to examine the association between incident injury after prescription opioid initiation and subsequent risk of ORAEs and to assess whether the association differs by recency of injury among older patients. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This nested case-control study was conducted within a cohort of 126,752 individuals aged 65 years or older selected from a 5% sample of Medicare beneficiaries in the United States between 2011 and 2018. Cohort participants were newly prescribed opioid users with chronic noncancer pain who had no injury or ORAEs in the year before opioid initiation, had 30 days or more of observation, and had at least 1 additional opioid prescription dispensed during follow-up. We identified ORAE cases as patients who had an inpatient or outpatient encounter with diagnosis codes for opioid misuse, dependence, or poisoning. During a mean follow-up of 1.8 years, we identified 2,734 patients who were newly diagnosed with ORAEs and 10,936 controls matched on the year of cohort entry date and a disease risk score (DRS), a summary score derived from the probability of an ORAE outcome based on covariates measured prior to cohort entry and in the absence of injury. Multivariate conditional logistic regression was used to estimate ORAE risk associated with any and recency of injury, defined based on the primary diagnosis code of inpatient and outpatient encounters. Among the cases and controls, 68.0% (n = 1,859 for cases and n = 7,436 for controls) were women and the mean (SD) age was 74.5 (6.9) years. Overall, 54.0% (n = 1,475) of cases and 46.0% (n = 1,259) of controls experienced incident injury after opioid initiation. Patients with (versus without) injury after opioid therapy had higher risk of ORAEs after adjustment for time-varying confounders, including diagnosis of tobacco or alcohol use disorder, drug use disorder, chronic pain diagnosis, mental health disorder, pain-related comorbidities, frailty index, emergency department visit, skilled nursing facility stay, anticonvulsant use, and patterns of prescription opioid use (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.4; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2 to 1.5; P < 0.001). Increased risk of ORAEs was associated with current (≤30 days) injury (aOR = 2.8; 95% CI 2.3 to 3.4; P < 0.001), whereas risk of ORAEs was not significantly associated with recent (31 to 90 days; aOR = 0.93; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.17; P = 0.48), past (91 to 180 days; aOR = 1.08; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.33; P = 0.51), and remote (181 to 365 days; aOR = 0.88; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.1; P = 0.18) injury preceding the incident diagnosis of ORAE or matched date. Patients with injury and prescription opioid use versus those with neither in the month before the ORAE or matched date were at greater risk of ORAEs (aOR = 5.0; 95% CI 4.1 to 6.1; P < 0.001). Major limitations are that the study findings can only be generalized to older Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries and that unknown or unmeasured confounders have the potential to bias the observed association toward or away from the null. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed that incident diagnosis of injury following opioid initiation was associated with subsequent increased risk of ORAEs, and the risk was only significant among patients with injury in the month before the index date. Regular monitoring for injury may help identify older opioid users at high risk for ORAEs.

Concurrent use of prescription gabapentinoids with opioids and risk for fall-related injury among older US Medicare beneficiaries with chronic noncancer pain: A population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Gabapentinoids are increasingly prescribed to manage chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) in older adults. When used concurrently with opioids, gabapentinoids may potentiate central nervous system (CNS) depression and increase the risks for fall. We aimed to investigate whether concurrent use of gabapentinoids with opioids compared with use of opioids alone is associated with an increased risk of fall-related injury among older adults with CNCP. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a population-based cohort study using a 5% national sample of Medicare beneficiaries in the United States between 2011 and 2018. Study sample consisted of fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries aged ≥65 years with CNCP diagnosis who initiated opioids. We identified concurrent users with gabapentinoids and opioids days' supply overlapping for ≥1 day and designated first day of concurrency as the index date. We created 2 cohorts based on whether concurrent users initiated gabapentinoids on the day of opioid initiation (Cohort 1) or after opioid initiation (Cohort 2). Each concurrent user was matched to up to 4 opioid-only users on opioid initiation date and index date using risk set sampling. We followed patients from index date to first fall-related injury event ascertained using a validated claims-based algorithm, treatment discontinuation or switching, death, Medicare disenrollment, hospitalization or nursing home admission, or end of study, whichever occurred first. In each cohort, we used propensity score (PS) weighted Cox models to estimate the adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of fall-related injury, adjusting for year of the index date, sociodemographics, types of chronic pain, comorbidities, frailty, polypharmacy, healthcare utilization, use of nonopioid medications, and opioid use on and before the index date. We identified 6,733 concurrent users and 27,092 matched opioid-only users in Cohort 1 and 5,709 concurrent users and 22,388 matched opioid-only users in Cohort 2. The incidence rate of fall-related injury was 24.5 per 100 person-years during follow-up (median, 9 days; interquartile range [IQR], 5 to 18 days) in Cohort 1 and was 18.0 per 100 person-years during follow-up (median, 9 days; IQR, 4 to 22 days) in Cohort 2. Concurrent users had similar risk of fall-related injury as opioid-only users in Cohort 1(aHR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.34, p = 0.874), but had higher risk for fall-related injury than opioid-only users in Cohort 2 (aHR = 1.69, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.44, p = 0.005). Limitations of this study included confounding due to unmeasured factors, unavailable information on gabapentinoids' indication, potential misclassification, and limited generalizability beyond older adults insured by Medicare FFS program. CONCLUSIONS: In this sample of older Medicare beneficiaries with CNCP, initiating gabapentinoids and opioids simultaneously compared with initiating opioids only was not significantly associated with risk for fall-related injury. However, addition of gabapentinoids to an existing opioid regimen was associated with increased risks for fall. Mechanisms for the observed excess risk, whether pharmacological or because of channeling of combination therapy to high-risk patients, require further investigation. Clinicians should consider the risk-benefit of combination therapy when prescribing gabapentinoids concurrently with opioids.

Trajectories of prescription opioid dose and risk of opioid-related adverse events among older Medicare beneficiaries in the United States: A nested case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Despite the rising number of older adults with medical encounters for opioid misuse, dependence, and poisoning, little is known about patterns of prescription opioid dose and their association with risk for opioid-related adverse events (ORAEs) in older patients. The study aims to compare trajectories of prescribed opioid doses in 6 months preceding an incident ORAE for cases and a matched control group of older patients with chronic noncancer pain (CNCP). METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a nested case-control study within a cohort of older (≥65 years) patients diagnosed with CNCP who were new users of prescription opioids, assembled using a 5% national random sample of Medicare beneficiaries from 2011 to 2018. From the cohort with a mean follow-up of 2.3 years, we identified 3,103 incident ORAE cases with ≥1 opioid prescription in 6 months preceding the event, and 3,103 controls matched on sex, age, and time since opioid initiation. Key exposure was trajectories of prescribed opioid morphine milligram equivalent (MME) daily dosage over 6 months before the incident ORAE or matched controls. Among the cases and controls, 2,192 (70.6%) were women, and the mean (SD) age was 77.1 (7.1) years. Four prescribed opioid trajectories before the incident ORAE diagnosis or matched date emerged: gradual dose discontinuation (from ≤3 to 0 daily MME, 1,456 [23.5%]), gradual dose increase (from 0 to >3 daily MME, 1,878 [30.3%]), consistent low dose (between 3 and 5 daily MME, 1,510 [24.3%]), and consistent moderate dose (>20 daily MME, 1,362 [22.0%]). Few older patients (<5%) were prescribed a mean daily dose of ≥90 daily MME during 6 months before diagnosis or matched date. Patients with gradual dose discontinuation versus those with a consistent low dose, moderate dose, and increase dose were more likely to be younger (65 to 74 years), Midwest US residents, and receiving no low-income subsidy. Compared to patients with gradual dose discontinuation, those with gradual dose increase (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 3.4; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.8 to 4.0; P < 0.001), consistent low dose (aOR = 3.8; 95% CI 3.2 to 4.6; P < 0.001), and consistent moderate dose (aOR = 8.5; 95% CI 6.8 to 10.7; P < 0.001) had a higher risk of ORAE, after adjustment for covariates. Our main findings remained robust in the sensitivity analysis using a cohort study with inverse probability of treatment weighting analyses. Major limitations include the limited generalizability of the study findings and lack of information on illicit opioid use, which prevents understanding the clinical dose threshold level that increases the risk of ORAE in older adults. CONCLUSIONS: In this sample of older patients who are Medicare beneficiaries, 4 prescription opioid dose trajectories were identified, with most prescribed doses below 90 daily MME within 6 months before ORAE or matched date. An increased risk for ORAE was observed among older patients with a gradual increase in dose or among those with a consistent low-to-moderate dose of prescribed opioids when compared to patients with opioid dose discontinuation. Whether older patients are susceptible to low opioid doses warrants further investigations.

Quality of opioid prescribing in older adults with or without Alzheimer disease and related dementia.

BACKGROUND: Pain is common among individuals with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD), and use of opioids has been increasing over the last decade. Yet, it is unclear to what extent opioids are appropriately prescribed for patients with ADRD and whether the appropriateness of opioid prescribing differs by ADRD status. The objective of this study is to compare the quality of opioid prescribing among patients with or without ADRD who have chronic noncancer pain. METHODS: A nationally representative cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries aged 50 years or older who had chronic pain but who had no cancer, hospice, or palliative care from 2011 to 2015. Four indicators of potentially inappropriate opioid prescribing were measured in patients residing in communities (75,258 patients with and 435,870 patients without ADRD); five indicators were assessed in patients in nursing homes (NHs) (37,117 patients with and 5128 patients without ADRD). Each indicator was calculated as the proportion of eligible patients with inappropriate opioid prescribing in the year after a chronic pain diagnosis. Differences in proportions between ADRD and non-ADRD groups were estimated using a generalized linear model adjusting for covariates through inverse probability weighting. RESULTS: Patients with ADRD versus those without had higher concurrent use of opioids and central nervous system-active drugs (community 44.1% vs 33.3%; NH 58.8% vs 54.1%, both P < 0.001) and no opioids or scheduled pain medications for moderate or severe pain (NH 60.1% vs 52.5%, P < 0.001). The ADRD versus non-ADRD group had higher use of long-term opioids for treating neuropathic pain in communities (21.7% vs 19.5%, P = 0.003) but lower use in NHs (26.9% vs 36.0%, P < 0.001). Use of strong or high-dose opioids when naive to opioids (community 1.5% vs 2.8%; NH 2.5% vs 3.5%) and use of contraindicated opioids (community 0.08% vs 0.12%; NH 0.05% vs 0.21%) were rare for either group. CONCLUSION: Potential inappropriate opioid prescribing in 2 areas of pain care was more common among patients with ADRD than among patients without ADRD in community or NH settings. Further studies aimed at understanding the factors and effects associated with opioid prescribing patterns that deviate from guidelines are warranted.

Agreement of Minimum Data Set 3.0 depression and behavioral symptoms with clinical diagnosis in a nursing home.

OBJECTIVES: While the Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 has adopted Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-9 to screen for depression and rephrased language for behavioral symptoms among nursing home residents, it remains unclear how well the assessment data agree with medical records. DESIGN: Using a retrospective review of MDS 3.0 linked to medical records between October 2010 and November 2017, we included residents with at least one quarterly or short-term (day 30 or day 60) MDS 3.0 assessment of depression PHQ-9 (n = 446) or behavioral symptoms (n = 460). For each resident of each cohort, we randomly selected an eligible MDS 3.0 depression and behavioral symptom assessment and compared against the respective medical diagnoses recorded within 30 days before the MDS 3.0 assessment. RESULTS: Percent agreement was high for depression (90.1%) and behavioral symptoms (89.3%). Negative agreement was high for depression (94.8%) and behavioral symptoms (94.3%), while positive agreement was low for both conditions (4.3% and 10.9%). CONCLUSION: MDS 3.0 depression and behavioral symptoms had high overall and negative agreement, but low positive agreement with clinician diagnoses. MDS 3.0 data may be useful in ruling out depression and behavioral symptoms. Confirmation of the findings in a representative sample of nursing homes is warranted.

Validation of algorithms to estimate gestational age at birth in the Medicaid Analytic eXtract-Quantifying the misclassification of maternal drug exposure during pregnancy.

PURPOSE: Accurate ascertainment of gestational age (GA) has been a challenge in perinatal epidemiologic research. To date, no study has validated GA algorithms in Medicaid Analytic eXtract (MAX). METHODS: We linked livebirths of mothers enrolled in Medicaid ≥30 days after delivery in 1999-2010 MAX to state birth certificates. We used clinical/obstetric estimate of gestation on the birth certificates as gold standard to validate claims-based GA algorithms. We calculated the proportions of deliveries with algorithm-estimated GA within 1-/2-weeks of the gold standard, the sensitivity, specificity, and positive/negative predictive value (PPV/NPV) of exposure to select medications during specific gestation windows, and quantified the impact of exposure misclassification on hypothetical relative risk (RR) estimates. RESULTS: We linked 1 336 495 eligible deliveries. Within 1-week agreement was 77%-80% overall and 47%-56% for preterm deliveries. The trimester-specific drug exposure status had high sensitivities and PPVs (88.5%-98.5%), and specificities and NPVs (>99.0%). Assuming a hypothetical RR of 2.0, bias associated with exposure misclassification during first trimester ranged from 10% to 40% under non-differential/differential misclassification assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: Claims-based GA algorithms had good agreement with the gold standard overall, but lower agreement among preterm deliveries, potentially resulting in biased risk estimated for pregnancy exposure evaluations.

Risk of Opioid Overdose Associated With Concomitant Use of Opioids and Skeletal Muscle Relaxants: A Population-Based Cohort Study.

The recent opioid prescribing guideline cautions about the concomitant prescribing of opioids and skeletal muscle relaxants (SMRs) given the additive central nervous system depressant effect. However, the clinical relevance remains unclear. In this retrospective cohort study, we compared the risk of opioid overdose associated with concomitant use of opioids and SMRs vs. opioid use alone. Adjusted hazard ratios were 1.09 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.74-1.62) and 1.26 (95% CI, 1.00-1.58) in the incident and prevalent opioid user cohorts, respectively, generating a combined estimate of 1.21 (95% CI, 1.00-1.48). This risk seemed to increase with treatment duration (≤ 14 days: 0.91 and 95% CI, 0.67-1.22; 15-60 days: 1.37 and 95% CI, 0.81-2.37; >60 days: 1.80 and 95% CI, 1.30-2.48) and for baclofen (1.83 and 95% CI, 1.11-3.04) and carisoprodol (1.84 and 95% CI, 1.34-2.54). Concomitant users with daily opioid dose ≥50 mg (1.50 and 95% CI, 1.18-1.92) and benzodiazepine use (1.39 and 95% CI, 1.08-1.79) also had elevated risk. Clinicians should be cautious about these potentially unsafe practices to optimize pain care and improve patient safety.

Towards Automating Adverse Event Review: A Prediction Model for Case Report Utility.

INTRODUCTION: The rapidly expanding size of the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System database requires modernized pharmacovigilance practices. Techniques to systematically identify high utility individual case safety reports (ICSRs) will support safety signal management. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to develop and validate a model predictive of an ICSR's pharmacovigilance utility (PVU). METHODS: PVU was operationalized as an ICSR's inclusion in an FDA-authored pharmacovigilance review's case series supporting a recommendation to modify product labeling. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine the association between PVU and ICSR features. The best performing model was selected for bootstrapping validation. As a sensitivity analysis, we evaluated the model's performance across subgroups of safety issues. RESULTS: We identified 10,381 ICSRs evaluated in 69 pharmacovigilance reviews, of which 2115 ICSRs were included in a case series. The strongest predictors of ICSR inclusion were reporting of a designated medical event (odds ratio (OR) 1.93, 95% CI 1.54-2.43) and positive dechallenge (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.50-1.87). The strongest predictors of ICSR exclusion were death reported as the only outcome (OR 2.72, 95% CI 1.76-4.35), more than three suspect products (OR 2.69, 95% CI 2.23-3.24), and > 15 preferred terms reported (OR 2.69, 95% CI 1.90-3.82). The validated model showed modest discriminative ability (C-statistic of 0.71). Our sensitivity analysis demonstrated heterogeneity in model performance by safety issue (C-statistic range 0.58-0.74). CONCLUSIONS: Our model demonstrated the feasibility of developing a tool predictive of ICSR utility. The model's modest discriminative ability highlights opportunities for further enhancement and suggests algorithms tailored to safety issues may be beneficial.

Trends in prescription opioid use and dose trajectories before opioid use disorder or overdose in US adults from 2006 to 2016: A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: With governments' increasing efforts to curb opioid prescription use and limit dose below the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-recommended threshold of 90 morphine milligram equivalents per day, little is known about prescription opioid patterns preceding opioid use disorder (OUD) or overdose. This study aimed to determine prescribed opioid fills and dose trajectories in the year before an incident OUD or overdose diagnosis using a 2005-2016 commercial healthcare database. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This cross-sectional study identified individuals aged 18 to 64 years with incident OUD or overdose in the United States. We measured the prevalence of opioid prescription fills and trajectories of opioid morphine equivalent dose (MED) prescribed during the 12-month period before the diagnosis. Of 227,038 adults with incident OUD or overdose, 33.1% were aged 18 to 30 years, 52.9% were males, and 85.0% were metropolitan residents. Half (50.5%) of the patients had a diagnosis of chronic pain, 32.7% had depression, and 20.3% had anxiety. Overall, 79,747 (35.1%) patients filled no opioid prescription in the 12 months before OUD or overdose diagnosis, with the proportion significantly increasing between 2006 and 2016 (adjusted prevalence ratio, 1.86; 95% CI 1.79-1.93; P < 0.001). Patients without (versus with) prescribed opioids tended to be younger males and metropolitan and Northeast US residents. Of 145,609 patients who filled opioid prescriptions, 5 distinct prescribed daily dose trajectories preceding diagnosis emerged: consistent low dose (<3 mg MED, 34.6%), consistent moderate dose (20 mg MED, 27.3%), consistent high dose (150 mg MED, 15.0%), escalating dose (from <3 to 20 mg MED, 13.7%), and de-escalating dose (from 20 to <3mg MED, 9.4%). Overall, over two-thirds of patients with OUD or overdose with prescription opioids were prescribed a mean daily dose below 90 mg MED before diagnosis. Major limitations include the limited generalizability of the study findings and lack of information on out-of-pocket drug spending, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status of participants, which prevents analyses addressing these characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we found that absence of opioid prescription fills in the year before incident OUD or overdose diagnosis was prevalent, and the majority of the patients received prescription opioid doses below the risk threshold of 90 mg MED. An increasing proportion of high-risk patients could be missed by current programs solely based on opioid prescribing and dispensing information in this new era of limited access to prescription opioids.

Trends in prior receipt of prescription opioid or adjuvant analgesics among patients with incident opioid use disorder or opioid-related overdose from 2006 to 2016.

BACKGROUND: With increasing efforts to scrutinize and reduce opioid prescribing, limited data exist on the recent trend in receipt of prescription pain medications before diagnosis of opioid use disorder (OUD) or opioid-related overdose (OD). METHODS: Using 2005-2016 Truven MarketScan Commercial Claims databases, we assessed trends in annual 1) incidence of OUD or OD and 2) prevalence of receipt of prescription opioids or four commonly-prescribed adjuvant analgesics among patients newly diagnosed with OUD/OD. Trends were examined in the overall sample and by 3 age groups, including youths (≤18 years), adults (19-64 years), and older adults (≥65 years). RESULTS: The incidence of diagnosed OUD or OD increased more than 3-fold from 4.99 to 23.81 per 10,000 persons from 2006 to 2016, with the highest increase (14.18-fold) seen in older adults, followed by adults (3.53-fold), and youths (0.16-fold). Between 2006 and 2016, the proportion of patients with incident OUD/OD who received anticonvulsant adjuvant analgesics in the year before diagnosis increased (from 23.4% to 34.3% [P-trend = .005]) whereas the proportion receiving high-dose prescriptions opioids decreased (from 45.5% to 34.8% [P-trend =< .001]). A decreasing trend was observed in general for tricyclic antidepressants and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors. DISCUSSION: In US commercially insured patients newly diagnosed with OUD/OD, receipt of high-dose opioid prescriptions preceding the diagnosis decreased over time, paralleled by increased use of anticonvulsants commonly prescribed for pain conditions. Further investigations are warranted to understand how prescribed and anticonvulsants contribute to the development of OUD/OD.

Impact of a New Consumer Form on the Quantity and Quality of Adverse Event Reports Submitted to the United States Food and Drug Administration.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Consumers and healthcare professionals can voluntarily report adverse experiences associated with drug products to the United States Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS). Consumers and healthcare professionals used the same general voluntary reporting form (GVR) until mid-2013, when a consumer voluntary reporting form (ConVR), written in plain language, was implemented. The objective of this study was to examine the effect of the ConVR on the quality and quantity of consumer reports submitted directly to FAERS. DESIGN: Descriptive; quasi-experimental. DATA SOURCE: FAERS database. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We identified all consumer and healthcare professional reports received directly by the FDA from January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2015. Report quality was defined by the completeness of 15 individual data fields and a structured tool measuring clinical documentation. An interrupted time series design was used to evaluate the impact on the quantity of consumer reports. Consumer reports submitted on the ConVR generally included more patient, product, and event data in the structured data fields than those submitted on the GVR. Fields with the greatest absolute percentage difference after the ConVR was introduced included race/ethnicity (+77.2%), product start and stop dates (+43% and +40.3%, respectively), dechallenge and rechallenge information (+19.1% and +29.4%, respectively), and medical history (+27%). Our structured assessment also classified more reports received on the ConVR as well documented relative to the GVR consumer reports (64.9% vs 37.8%, p<0.01). The time series model demonstrated an immediate increase of 499 consumer reports in the month following the ConVR's implementation (p<0.01). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that the ConVR has contributed positively to both the quality and quantity of consumer reports in FAERS.

Prevalence of and Factors Associated With Long-term Concurrent Use of Stimulants and Opioids Among Adults With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder.

Importance: There exist limited data on the long-term concurrent use of stimulants and opioids among adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), a population at risk for prescription drug abuse. Objective: To assess the prevalence and secular trends of and the factors associated with long-term concurrent use of stimulants and opioids among adults with ADHD. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study assessed Medicaid Analytic eXtract data from 29 states between 1999 and 2010. Medicaid fee-for-service enrollees aged 20 to 64 years with ADHD who were continuously enrolled for more than 12 months after receiving an ADHD diagnosis were included. One 12-month continuous enrollment period was randomly selected as an observation unit for each enrollee. Multivariable regression models were used to determine secular trends in the prevalence of and the potential risk factors associated with long-term concurrent stimulant-opioid use. Analyses were conducted between January 1 and December 31, 2017. Exposures: Risk factors measured during the first half of the 12-month observation unit. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prevalence of long-term use of stimulants and opioids overlapping for at least 30 consecutive days was measured during the second half of the randomly selected 12-month observation unit. Results: Of the 66 406 Medicaid-enrolled adults with ADHD who were identified as eligible, 35 670 (53.7%) were 20 to 30 years old, 37 155 (56.0%) were women, and 52 551 (79.1%) were non-Hispanic white individuals. Of these 66 406 adults with ADHD, 21 723 (32.7%) used stimulants, and 3590 (5.4%) were long-term users of stimulants and opioids. Long-term opioid use was more common among adults with ADHD who used stimulants (3590 of 21 723 [16.5%]) than among those with ADHD who did not use stimulants (5826 of 44 683 [13.0%]). Long-term concurrent stimulant-opioid use increased between 1999 and 2010 (adjusted prevalence relative ratio [PRR], 1.12; 95% CI, 1.10-1.14). Compared with patients aged 20 to 30 years, the prevalence of long-term concurrent stimulant-opioid use was higher among patients in their 30s (PRR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.07-1.08) and was further increased among patients in their 40s (PRR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.12-1.15) and 50s (PRR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.16-1.19). Other strongly associated risk factors included being non-Hispanic white (black PRR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.92-0.93; other PRR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.97-0.98; vs white), living in the southern United States (Midwest PRR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.98; Northeast PRR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.93-0.94; West PRR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.94-0.96; vs South), and receiving a diagnosis of substance abuse disorder (PRR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.03-1.05), depression (PRR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.03), anxiety disorder (PRR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.04-1.07), chronic pain (PRR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.07-1.13), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (PRR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.04-1.07), or cardiovascular disease (PRR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.03). Conclusions and Relevance: Long-term concurrent use of stimulants and opioids among adults with ADHD is common. This study suggests that clinical and research priorities should be made toward understanding the benefits and risks of long-term coadministration of stimulants and opioids in the management of ADHD and co-occurring pain conditions.

Use of antiparkinson medications among elderly Medicare beneficiaries with Parkinson's disease.

BACKGROUND: Antiparkinson drugs (APDs) are the mainstay in the management of Parkinson's disease (PD). However, the use of APDs has not been investigated in a nationally representative sample. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to describe the prevalence and patterns of APD use and to identify determinants of APD use among elderly Medicare beneficiaries with PD. METHODS: Data from the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey and Medicare claims from 2000 to 2003 were used to identify beneficiaries ≥65 years of age with PD. The APDs included in the study were levodopa, dopamine agonists, monoamine oxidase-B inhibitors, amantadine, anticholinergic agents, and catechol-O-methyltransferase inhibitors. The annual prevalence of APD use was calculated; patterns of APD use were measured by drug class and type of drug regimens (monotherapy or combination therapy). Potential determinants of APD use included sociodemographic characteristics (age, sex, race, education, marital status, and annual income), self-reported health status, residential status (institution or community), prescription drug coverage, disability (functional, physical, and mental), and disease-specific factors (dementia, depression, and other comorbidities). Multivariate logistic regression analyses with generalized estimating equations were used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) of any APD use associated with the determinants. RESULTS: The data revealed 571 beneficiaries with PD (30.1% aged ≥85 years, 55.0% female, 88.3% white), who were observed for a total of 924 person-years. The annual prevalence of APD use was 58.2% (538/924). Levodopa was the most frequently used agent, either as monotherapy or in combination with other APDs (85.5%; 460/538). Multivariate analyses found that patients 65 to 74 years of age (OR = 0.70; 95% CI, 0.49-0.99; P < 0.05) and those ≥85 years of age (OR = 0.57; 95% CI, 0.40-0.81; P < 0.01) were less likely to use APDs than were patients aged 75 to 84 years of age. Patients who had attained a high level of education (more than a high school diploma) were more likely to use APDs than were patients with a low level of education (a high school diploma or less) (OR = 1.51; 95% CI, 1.04-2.19; P < 0.05). In addition, institutionalization (OR = 1.78; 95% CI, 1.17-2.71; P < 0.01), prescription drug coverage (OR = 1.50; 95% CI, 1.15-1.94; P < 0.01), activities of daily living (ADLs) (OR = 1.47; 95% CI, 1.16-1.87; P < 0.01), and depression (OR = 1.25; 95% CI, 1.02-1.53; P < 0.05) were significantly associated with use of APDs. The probability of APD use was lower among those with dementia than among those without dementia (OR = 0.62; 95% CI, 0.48-0.80; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Almost half of the elderly Medicare beneficiaries with PD in this study did not use any APD between 2000 and 2003. Levodopa was the most frequently used APD, either as monotherapy or in combination with other APDs. The identified determinants of APD use (age, education, prescription drug coverage, ADLs, dementia, depression, and residing in an institution) may be helpful in developing interventions for this population.