Dataset Information

Abuse and Diversion of Immediate Release Opioid Analgesics as Compared to Extended Release Formulations in the United States.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Therapeutic use and abuse of prescription opioids in the United States increased substantially between 1990 and 2010. The Centers for Disease Control estimated deaths related to pharmaceutical opioids reached nearly 19,000 in 2014. Of prescription opioids sold, 10% are extended release (ER) and 90% immediate release (IR). However, most regulations and interventions have focused on decreasing ER abuse. Our objective was to compare rates of abuse and diversion of ER and IR opioid analgesics over time using multiple surveillance programs.

Methods

Rates of abuse and diversion of ER and IR opioid formulations were compared using data from four surveillance programs in the Researched Abuse, Diversion and Addiction Related Surveillance (RADARS®) System. Data were evaluated from 2009 through 2015, and Poisson regression used to compare IR and ER opioid cases over time.

Results

From 2009 to 2015, IR opioids were prescribed at a rate 12 to 16 times higher than ER. In the Poison Center Program, population-adjusted rates of Intentional Abuse for IR were 4.6 fold higher than ER opioids (p<0.001). In the Drug Diversion Program, population-adjusted rates of diversion were 6.1 fold higher for IR than ER opioids (p<0.001). In the Opioid Treatment Program, population-adjusted rates of endorsements for abuse were 1.6 fold higher for IR opioids than ER (p = 0.002). In the Survey of Key Informants' Patients Program, population-adjusted rates of endorsements for abuse were 1.5 fold higher for IR opioids than ER (p<0.001).

Conclusions

Between 2009 and 2015, IR opioids were prescribed at a much higher rate than ER opioids. Results from four surveillance programs show population-adjusted rates of prescription opioid abuse were markedly higher for IR than ER medications. For the greatest public health benefit, future interventions to decrease prescription opioid abuse should focus on both IR and ER formulations.

SUBMITTER: Iwanicki JL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5147916 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:The United States spends more money on medications than any other country. Most extended-release drugs have not consistently shown therapeutic or adherence superiority, and switching these medications to less expensive, generic, immediate-release formulations may offer an opportunity to reduce health care spending. Objective:To evaluate Medicare Part D and Medicaid spending on extended-release drug formulations and the potential savings associated with switching to generic immediate-release formulations. Design, Setting, and Participants:This cross-sectional study used the 2012 to 2017 Medicare Part D Drug Event and Medicaid Spending and Utilization data sets to analyze 20 extended-release drugs with 37 Medicare formulations and 36 Medicaid formulations. Only cardiovascular, diabetes, neurologic, and psychiatric extended-release drugs saving at most 1 additional daily dose compared with their immediate-release counterparts were included. Extended-release drugs with therapeutic superiority were excluded. Analyses were conducted from January to December 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures:Estimated Medicare Part D and Medicaid savings from switching extended-release to immediate-release drug formulations between 2012 and 2017. Results:Of the 6252 drugs screened for eligibility from the 2017 Medicaid Drug Utilization database and the 2017 Medicare Part D database, 67 drugs with extended-release formulations that were identified in the Medicare data set (20 distinct drugs with 37 formulations [19 brand, 18 generic]) were included in the analysis. In 2017, Medicare Part D spent $2.2 billion and Medicaid spent $952 million (a combined $3.1 billion) on 20 extended-release drugs. Between 2012 and 2017, Medicare Part D and Medicaid spent $12 billion and $5.9 billion, respectively, on extended-release formulations. Switching from brand-name to generic extended-release formulations was estimated to be associated with a $247 million reduction in Medicare spending and $299 million reduction in Medicaid spending in 2017, whereas switching all brand-name and generic extended-release formulations to immediate-release formulations in both Medicare and Medicaid was estimated to reduce spending by $2.6 billion ($1.8 billion for Medicare and $836 million for Medicaid) in 2017. During the study period, the estimated spending reduction associated with switching all patients receiving extended-release formulations (brand name extended-release and generic extended-release) to generic immediate-release formulations was $13.7 billion ($8.5 billion from Medicare and $5.2 billion from Medicaid). Conclusions and Relevance:The findings suggest that switching from extended-release drug formulations to therapeutically equivalent immediate-release formulations when available represents a potential option to reduce Medicare and Medicaid spending.

Project description:ImportanceMany stakeholders are working to improve the safe use of immediate-release (IR) and extended-release/long-acting (ER/LA) opioid analgesics. However, little information exists regarding the relative use of these 2 formulations in chronic pain management.ObjectivesTo describe the distribution of IR and ER/LA opioid analgesic therapy duration and examine adding and switching patterns among patients receiving long-term IR opioid analgesic therapy, defined as at least 90 consecutive days of IR formulation use.Design, setting, and participantsA retrospective cohort study of 169 million individuals receiving opioid analgesics from across 90% of outpatient retail pharmacies in the United States from January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2014, using the IQVIA Health Vector One: Data Extract Tool. Analyses were conducted from March 2015 to June 2017.ExposuresReceipt of dispensed IR or ER/LA opioid analgesic prescription.Main outcomes and measuresDistribution of therapy frequency and duration of IR and ER/LA opioid analgesic use, and annual proportions of patients receiving long-term IR opioid analgesic therapy who added an ER/LA formulation while continuing to use an IR formulation, switched to an ER/LA formulation, or continued receiving IR opioid analgesic therapy only.ResultsAmong the 169 280 456 patients included in this analysis, 168 315 458 patients filled IR formulations and 10 216 570 patients filled ER/LA formulations. A similar percentage of women received ER/LA (55%) and IR (56%) formulations, although those receiving ER/LA formulations (72%) were more likely to be aged 45 years or older compared with those receiving IR formulations (46%). The longest opioid analgesic episode duration was 90 days or longer for 11 563 089 patients (7%) filling IR formulations and 3 103 777 patients (30%) filling ER/LA formulations. The median episode duration was 5 days (interquartile range, 3-10 days) for patients using IR formulations and 30 days (interquartile range, 21-74 days) for patients using ER/LA formulations. From January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2014, a small and decreasing proportion of patients with long-term IR opioid analgesic therapy added (3.8% in 2003 to 1.8% in 2014) or switched to (1.0% in 2003 to 0.5% in 2014) an ER/LA formulation.Conclusions and relevanceMost patients receiving opioid analgesics, whether for short or extended periods, use IR formulations. Once receiving long-term IR opioid analgesic therapy, patients are unlikely to add or switch to an ER/LA formulation.