Dataset Information

Health Care Utilization and Costs Associated with Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Receiving Oral Immediate-Release Opioids for Outpatient Acute Pain Management.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Nausea and vomiting (NV) are common side effects of opioid use and limiting factors in pain management. This study sought to quantify the frequency of antiemetic prescribing and the impact of NV on health care resource utilization and costs in outpatients prescribed opioids for acute pain. The perspective was that of a commercial health plan.

Methods

Medical and pharmacy claims from IMS PharMetrics Plus were used to identify patients initiating opioid therapy with a prescription for an oxycodone-, hydrocodone- or codeine-containing immediate-release product for acute use (≤15-day supply) between October 1, 2013 and September 30, 2014. Patients with a medical claim for NV (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes 787.0x), with or without an antiemetic prescription fill, were compared with patients with no NV claim or antiemetic prescription fill to assess differences in all-cause health care utilization and costs over 1 month. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to adjust for between-group differences in baseline patient characteristics.

Results

The co-prescribing of opioids with antiemetic agents was 10.2%. After PSM (n = 45,790 per group), patients with NV claims had significantly more hospitalizations (11.5% vs 4.2%), emergency department visits (65.0% vs 12.1%), and physician office visits (85.2% vs 64.5%) compared with patients with no NV claims (all P < 0.0001). Mean total health care costs were higher among patients with a NV claim versus those without evidence of the side effect ($6290 vs $2309; P < 0.0001). Among patients with a recent hospitalization, patients with NV claims had higher rates of 30-day rehospitalization than those with no NV claims (24.4% vs 3.0%; P < 0.0001).

Conclusions

Among outpatients prescribed opioids for management of acute pain, co-prescribing with antiemetics was low, and the economic burden associated with NV was high. Efforts to prevent NV in patients receiving opioid therapy may improve patient outcomes and provide cost savings to the health care system.

Funding

Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.

SUBMITTER: Marrett E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5130907 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe buprenorphine transdermal system (BTDS) is approved in the US for the management of chronic pain. Due to its high affinity for μ-opioid receptors with a slow dissociation profile, buprenorphine may potentially displace or prevent the binding of competing μ-opioid-receptor agonists, including immediate-release (IR) opioids, in a dose-dependent manner. Health care professionals may assume that the use of IR opioids for supplemental analgesia during BTDS therapy is not acceptable.Materials and methodsThis post hoc analysis evaluated the use of IR opioids as supplemental analgesia during the management of moderate-severe chronic pain with BTDS at 52 US sites (BUP3015S, NCT01125917). Patients were categorized into IR-opioid and no-IR-opioid groups. At each visit of the extension phase, adverse events, concomitant medications, and information from the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) were recorded.ResultsThe most common supplemental IR opioids prescribed during BTDS treatment (n=354) were hydrocodone-acetaminophen and oxycodone-acetaminophen. The mean daily dose of IR opioids (morphine equivalents) for supplemental analgesia was 22 mg. At baseline, BPI - pain intensity and BPI - interference scores were higher for patients in the IR-opioid group. In both treatment groups, scores improved by week 4, and then were maintained throughout 6 months of the open-label extension trial. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar in both groups.ConclusionPatients who were prescribed IR opioids reported lower scores for BPI pain intensity and pain interference to levels similar to patients receiving BTDS without IR opioids, without increasing the rate or severity of treatment-emergent adverse events. Patients prescribed concomitant use of IR opioids with BTDS had greater treatment persistence. The results of this post hoc analysis provide support for the concomitant use of IR opioids for supplemental analgesia during the management of moderate-severe chronic pain with BTDS.

Project description:BackgroundWhether the preoperative administration of pregabalin plays a beneficial role in controlling acute pain after hysterectomy is unknown. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine the efficacy and safety of the preoperative use of pregabalin to treat acute postoperative pain following hysterectomy.MethodsIn April 2017, a systematic computer-based search was conducted in the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google databases. RCTs comparing pregabalin with placebo in patients undergoing hysterectomy were retrieved. The primary endpoint was the visual analog scale (VAS) score with rest or mobilization at 2?h, 4 and 24?hours and cumulative morphine consumption at 2, 4, 24, and 48?hours. The secondary outcomes were complications of nausea, vomiting, sedation, and dizziness. After tests for publication bias and heterogeneity among studies were performed, the data were aggregated for random-effects models when necessary.ResultsTen clinical studies with 1207 patients (pregabalin?=?760, control?=?447) were finally included in this meta-analysis. Preoperative administration of pregabalin was associated with a significant reduction of VAS with rest or mobilization at 2, 4, and 24?hours after hysterectomy. Further, the preoperative administration of pregabalin was associated with a reduction in total morphine consumption at 2, 4, 24, and 48?hours after hysterectomy. The occurrence of morphine-related complications (nausea and vomiting) was also reduced in the pregabalin group. However, the preoperative administration of pregabalin was associated with an increase in the occurrence of dizziness. There was no significant difference in the occurrence of sedation.ConclusionsThe preoperative use of pregabalin reduced postoperative pain, total morphine consumption, and morphine-related complications following hysterectomy. The doses of pregabalin were different, and large heterogeneity was the limitation of the current meta-analysis. Further studies should determine the optimal dose for controlling acute pain after hysterectomy.

Project description:ImportanceOpioid-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.ObjectivesTo 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 participantsThis 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 measuresPrevalence of clinics' acceptance of new patients receiving prescription opioids overall and by clinic characteristics and insurance type.ResultsOf 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 relevanceThe 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.