Dataset Information

A Typology of New Long-term Opioid Prescribing in the Veterans Health Administration.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Narrow definitions of long-term opioid (LTO) use result in limited knowledge of the full range of LTO prescribing patterns and the rates of these patterns.

Objective

To investigate a model of new LTO prescribing typologies using latent class analysis.

Design

National administrative data from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse were accessed using the VA Informatics and Computing Infrastructure. Characterization of the typology of initial LTO prescribing was explored using latent class analysis.

Participants

Veterans initiating LTO during 2016 through the Veteran's Administration Healthcare System (N = 42,230).

Main measures

Opioid receipt as determined by VA prescription data, using the cabinet supply methodology.

Key results

Over one-quarter (27.7%) of the sample fell into the fragmented new long-term prescribing category, 39.8% were characterized by uniform daily new LTO, and the remaining 32.7% were characterized by uniform episodic LTO. Each of these three broad sub-groups also included two additional sub-groups (6 classes total in the model), characterized by the presence or absence of prior opioid prescriptions.

Conclusions

New LTO prescribing in the VA includes uniform daily prescribing, uniform episodic prescribing, and fragmented prescribing. Future work is needed to elucidate the safety and efficacy of these prescribing patterns.

SUBMITTER: Hadlandsmyth K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7458960 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTreatment by high-opioid prescribing physicians in the emergency department (ED) is associated with higher rates of long-term opioid use among Medicare beneficiaries. However, it is unclear if this result is true in other high-risk populations such as Veterans.ObjectiveTo estimate the effect of exposure to high-opioid prescribing physicians on long-term opioid use for opioid-naïve Veterans.DesignObservational study using Veterans Health Administration (VA) encounter and prescription data.Setting and participantsVeterans with an index ED visit at any VA facility in 2012 and without opioid prescriptions in the prior 6 months in the VA system ("opioid naïve").MeasurementsWe assigned patients to emergency physicians and categorized physicians into within-hospital quartiles based on their opioid prescribing rates. Our primary outcome was long-term opioid use, defined as 6 months of days supplied in the 12 months subsequent to the ED visit. We compared rates of long-term opioid use among patients treated by high versus low quartile prescribers, adjusting for patient demographic, clinical characteristics, and ED diagnoses.ResultsWe identified 57,738 and 86,393 opioid-naïve Veterans managed by 362 and 440 low and high quartile prescribers, respectively. Patient characteristics were similar across groups. ED opioid prescribing rates varied more than threefold between the low and high quartile prescribers within hospitals (6.4% vs. 20.8%, p < 0.001). The frequency of long-term opioid use was higher among Veterans treated by high versus low quartile prescribers, though above the threshold for statistical significance (1.39% vs. 1.26%; adjusted OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.997-1.24, p = 0.056). In subgroup analyses, there were significant associations for patients with back pain (adjusted OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.01-1.55, p = 0.04) and for those with a history of depression (adjusted OR 1.28, 95% CI 1.08-1.51, p = 0.004).ConclusionsED physician opioid prescribing varied by over 300% within facility, with a statistically non-significant increased rate of long-term use among opioid-naïve Veterans exposed to the highest intensity prescribers.

Project description:IntroductionThe Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has taken a multifaceted approach to addressing opioid safety and promoting system-wide opioid stewardship.AimTo provide a comprehensive evaluation of current opioid prescribing practices and implementation of risk mitigation strategies in VHA.SettingVHA is the largest integrated health care system in the United States.Program descriptionVHA prescribing data in conjunction with implementation of opioid risk mitigation strategies are routinely tracked and reviewed by VHA's Pharmacy Benefits Management Services (including Academic Detailing Service) and the Pain Management Program Office. Additional data are derived from the Partnered Evidence-Based Policy Resource Center (PEPReC) and from a 2019 survey of interdisciplinary pain management teams at VHA facilities. Prescribing data are reported quarterly until first quarter fiscal year 2020 (Q1FY2020), ending December 31, 2019.Program evaluationVHA opioid dispensing peaked in 2012 with 679,376 Veterans receiving an opioid prescription, and when including tramadol, in 2013 with 869,956 Veterans. Since 2012, the number of Veterans dispensed an opioid decreased 56% and co-prescribed opioid/benzodiazepine decreased 83%. Veterans with high-dose opioids (≥ 100 mg morphine equivalent daily dose) decreased 77%. In Q1FY2020, among Veterans on long-term opioid therapy (LTOT), 91.1% had written informed consent, 90.8% had a urine drug screen, and 89.0% had a prescription drug monitoring program query. Naloxone was issued to 217,469 Veterans and resulted in > 1,000 documented overdose reversals. In 2019, interdisciplinary pain management teams were fully designated at 68%, partially designated at 28%, and not available at 4% of 140 VA parent facilities. Fifty percent of Veterans on opioids at very high risk for overdose/suicide received interdisciplinary team reviews.ImplicationsVHA clinicians have greatly reduced their volume of opioid prescribing for pain management and expanded implementation of opioid risk mitigation strategies.ImpactsVHA's integrated health care system provides a model for opioid stewardship and interdisciplinary pain care.

Project description:BackgroundPrior opioid discontinuation studies have focused on one of two characteristics of opioid prescribing, its duration (long term vs not) or dosage (high vs low). Questions remain about the experience of patients with high-dose, long-term opioid therapy (HLOT) prescriptions who are likely to be at the highest risk for adverse events.ObjectiveWe address the following questions among the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) patients receiving HLOT: 1), How has the prevalence of discontinuation of opioids changed over time? 2), How do patient characteristics vary between those who do and do not discontinue? And 3), how does the prevalence of discontinuation vary geographically?DesignA retrospective observational study of VHA patients with HLOT between fiscal year (FY) 2014 and FY2018.ParticipantsWe identified 1,281,330 patients from VHA outpatient opioid prescription data with at least a 1-day opioid supply between FY2014 and FY2018. We identified and excluded those receiving palliative care or diagnosed with metastatic cancer.Main measuresFor a given patient and month, a patient having a 3-month moving average of ≥ 90 daily morphine milligram equivalent (MME) was defined as having HLOT. Similarly, we used a three-month average MME of zero as discontinuation.Key resultsThe prevalence of discontinuation among patients with HLOT increased from 6.3% in FY2014 to 7.8% in FY2018. Across the years, patients who discontinued were younger, less likely to be married, and more likely to have comorbidities related to substance use disorders compared with patients who continued to receive HLOT. Incidence of discontinuation among those with HLOT increased in more than half (64%) of the 129 VHA medical centers.ConclusionPrevalence of patients receiving HLOT in the VHA decreased as the incidence of discontinuation increased. Further research is needed to understand the process by which patients are discontinued and to assess the relationship between discontinuation and health outcomes.

Project description:ImportanceAndrogen deficiency is common among male opioid users, and opioid use has emerged as a common antecedent of testosterone treatment. The long-term health outcomes associated with testosterone therapy remain unknown, however.ObjectiveTo compare health outcomes between long-term opioid users with testosterone deficiency who filled testosterone prescriptions and those with the same condition but who did not receive testosterone treatment.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study focused on men in the care of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities throughout the United States from October 1, 2008, to September 30, 2014. It included male veterans who were long-term opioid users, had low testosterone levels (<300 ng/dL), and received either a testosterone prescription or any other prescription. It excluded male patients with HIV infection, gender dysphoria, or prostate cancer and those who received testosterone in fiscal year 2008. Data were analyzed from April 1, 2017, to April 30, 2019.ExposurePrescription for testosterone.Main outcomes and measuresAll-cause mortality and incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), vertebral or femoral fractures, and anemia during the 6-year follow-up through September 30, 2015.ResultsAfter exclusions, 21 272 long-term opioid users (mean [SD] age, 53 [10] years; n = 16 689 [78.5%] white) with low total or free testosterone levels were included for analysis, of whom 14 121 (66.4%) received testosterone and 7151 (33.6%) did not. At baseline, compared with opioid users who did not receive testosterone, long-term opioid users who received testosterone treatment were more likely to have obesity (43.7% vs 49.0%; P < .001), hyperlipidemia (43.0% vs 48.8%; P < .001), and hypertension (53.9% vs 55.2%; P = .07) but had lower prevalence of coronary artery disease (15.9% vs 12.9%; P < .001) and stroke (2.4% vs 1.3%; P < .001). After adjusting for covariates, opioid users who received testosterone had significantly lower all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.51; 95% CI, 0.42-0.61) and lower incidence of MACE (HR = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.51-0.67), femoral or hip fractures (HR = 0.68; 95% CI, 0.48-0.96), and anemia (HR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.68-0.79) during the follow-up period of up to 6 years, compared with their counterparts without a testosterone prescription. In covariate-adjusted models, men who received opioids plus testosterone were more likely to have resolved anemia compared with those who received opioids only during the 6-year follow-up (HR = 1.16; 95% CI, 1.02-1.31). Similar results were obtained in propensity score-matched models and when analyses were restricted to opioid users with noncancer pain or those who did not receive glucocorticoids.Conclusions and relevanceThis study found that, in the VHA system, male long-term opioid users with testosterone deficiency who were treated with opioid and testosterone medications had significantly lower all-cause mortality and significantly lower incidence of MACE, femoral or hip fractures, and anemia after a multiyear follow-up. These results warrant confirmation through a randomized clinical trial to ascertain the efficacy of testosterone in improving health outcomes for opioid users with androgen deficiency.

Project description:BackgroundThe College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia introduced opioid prescribing standards and guidelines in mid-2016 in British Columbia. We evaluated impacts of the standards and guidelines on health outcomes.MethodsWe conducted a longitudinal study with repeated measures using administrative data from December 2013 to March 2017. The study included BC patients with long-term use of prescription opioids. Those with a history of long-term care, palliative care or cancer were excluded. Patients were followed for a 12-month prepolicy period and 10-month postpolicy period and compared with historical controls. We estimated changes in level (sudden changes) and monthly trend (gradual changes) of rates of opioid overdose hospital admission, and secondary outcomes of all-cause hospital admission, all-cause emergency department visits, opioid overdose mortality and all-cause mortality.ResultsThe study included 68 113 patients in the main cohort and 68 429 historical controls. We did not find significant changes to opioid overdose hospital admissions in level (adjusted rate ratio [RR] 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45-1.54) or in trend (adjusted RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91-1.10). All-cause hospital admissions declined in level but may have increased in trend, suggesting that a temporary decrease in hospital admissions may have occurred. We found no significant changes in all-cause emergency department visits, opioid overdose mortality or all-cause mortality.InterpretationAmong patients with a history of long-term prescription opioid use, the regulatory prescribing standards and guidelines were not associated with changes in opioid overdose hospital admissions, all-cause emergency department visits, opioid overdose mortality or all-cause mortality, or with a sustained reduction in all-cause hospital admissions, over a 10-month period after they were introduced. Future research should investigate whether opioid prescribing standards or guidelines are associated with use of nonopioid analgesic medications or nonpharmacologic treatments.

Project description:Background: The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia introduced opioid prescribing standards and guidelines in mid-2016 in British Columbia. We evaluated impacts of the standards and guidelines on health outcomes. Methods: We conducted a longitudinal study with repeated measures using administrative data from December 2013 to March 2017. The study included BC patients with long-term use of prescription opioids. Those with a history of long-term care, palliative care or cancer were excluded. Patients were followed for a 12-month prepolicy period and 10-month postpolicy period and compared with historical controls. We estimated changes in level (sudden changes) and monthly trend (gradual changes) of rates of opioid overdose hospital admission, and secondary outcomes of all-cause hospital admission, all-cause emergency department visits, opioid overdose mortality and all-cause mortality. Results: The study included 68 113 patients in the main cohort and 68 429 historical controls. We did not find significant changes to opioid overdose hospital admissions in level (adjusted rate ratio [RR] 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45–1.54) or in trend (adjusted RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91–1.10). All-cause hospital admissions declined in level but may have increased in trend, suggesting that a temporary decrease in hospital admissions may have occurred. We found no significant changes in all-cause emergency department visits, opioid overdose mortality or all-cause mortality. Interpretation: Among patients with a history of long-term prescription opioid use, the regulatory prescribing standards and guidelines were not associated with changes in opioid overdose hospital admissions, all-cause emergency department visits, opioid overdose mortality or all-cause mortality, or with a sustained reduction in all-cause hospital admissions, over a 10-month period after they were introduced. Future research should investigate whether opioid prescribing standards or guidelines are associated with use of nonopioid analgesic medications or nonpharmacologic treatments.

Project description:BackgroundIncreasing overuse of opioids in the United States may be driven in part by physician prescribing. However, the extent to which individual physicians vary in opioid prescribing and the implications of that variation for long-term opioid use and adverse outcomes in patients are unknown.MethodsWe performed a retrospective analysis involving Medicare beneficiaries who had an index emergency department visit in the period from 2008 through 2011 and had not received prescriptions for opioids within 6 months before that visit. After identifying the emergency physicians within a hospital who cared for the patients, we categorized the physicians as being high-intensity or low-intensity opioid prescribers according to relative quartiles of prescribing rates within the same hospital. We compared rates of long-term opioid use, defined as 6 months of days supplied, in the 12 months after a visit to the emergency department among patients treated by high-intensity or low-intensity prescribers, with adjustment for patient characteristics.ResultsOur sample consisted of 215,678 patients who received treatment from low-intensity prescribers and 161,951 patients who received treatment from high-intensity prescribers. Patient characteristics, including diagnoses in the emergency department, were similar in the two treatment groups. Within individual hospitals, rates of opioid prescribing varied widely between low-intensity and high-intensity prescribers (7.3% vs. 24.1%). Long-term opioid use was significantly higher among patients treated by high-intensity prescribers than among patients treated by low-intensity prescribers (adjusted odds ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.23 to 1.37; P<0.001); these findings were consistent across multiple sensitivity analyses.ConclusionsWide variation in rates of opioid prescribing existed among physicians practicing within the same emergency department, and rates of long-term opioid use were increased among patients who had not previously received opioids and received treatment from high-intensity opioid prescribers. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health.).

Project description:Background and aimsWhile long-term medication-assisted treatment (MAT) using methadone or buprenorphine is associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality for individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD), periods of initiating or discontinuing treatment are associated with higher mortality risks relative to stable treatment. This study aimed to identify the OUD treatment durations necessary for the elevated mortality risks during treatment transitions to be balanced by reductions in mortality while receiving treatment.DesignSimulation model based on a compartmental model of OUD diagnosis, MAT receipt and all-cause mortality among Veterans with OUD in the United States Veterans Health Administration (VA) in 2017-2018. We simulated methadone and buprenorphine treatments of varying durations using parameters obtained through calibration and published meta-analyses of studies from North America, Europe and Australia.SettingUnited States.ParticipantsSimulated cohorts of 10 000 individuals with OUD.MeasurementsAll-cause mortality over 12 months.FindingsReceiving methadone for 4 months or longer or buprenorphine for 2 months or longer resulted in 54 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 5-90] and 65 (95% CI = 21-89) fewer deaths relative to not receiving MAT for the same duration, using VA-specific mortality rates. We estimated shorter treatment durations necessary to achieve net mortality benefits of 2 months or longer for methadone and 1 month or longer for buprenorphine, using non-VA population literature estimates. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that necessary treatment durations increased more with smaller mortality reductions on treatment than with larger relative risks during treatment transitions.ConclusionsShort periods (< 6 months) of treatment with either methadone or buprenorphine are likely to yield net mortality benefits for people with opioid use disorder relative to receiving no medications, despite periods of elevated all-cause mortality risk during transitions into and out of treatment. Retaining people with opioid use disorder in treatment longer can increase these benefits.