Dataset Information

Changes in early high-risk opioid prescribing practices after policy interventions in Washington State.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To test associations between several opioid prescribing policy interventions and changes in early (acute/subacute) high-risk opioid prescribing practices.

Data sources

Population-based workers' compensation pharmacy billing and claims data, Washington State Department of Labor and Industries (January 2008-June 2015).

Study design

We used interrupted time series analysis to test associations between three policy intervention timepoints and monthly proportions of population-based measures of high-risk, low-risk, and any workers' compensation-related opioid prescribing. We also tested associations between the policy intervention timepoints and five high-risk opioid prescribing indicators among workers prescribed any opioids within 3 months after injury: (a) >7 cumulative (not necessarily consecutive) days' supply of opioids during the acute phase, (b) high-dose opioids, (c) concurrent sedatives, (d) chronic opioids, and (e) a composite high-risk opioid prescribing indicator.

Principal findings

Within 3 months after injury, 9 percent of workers were exposed to high-risk and 12 percent to low-risk workers' compensation-related opioid prescribing; 79 percent filled no workers' compensation-related opioid prescription. Among workers prescribed any early (acute/subacute) opioids, the indicator for >7 days' supply of opioids during the acute phase was present for 30 percent, high-dose opioids for 18 percent, concurrent sedatives for 3 percent, and chronic opioids for 2 percent. Beyond a general shift toward more infrequent and lower-risk workers' compensation-related opioid prescribing, each policy intervention timepoint was significantly associated with reductions in specific acute/subacute high-risk opioid prescribing indicators; each of the four specific high-risk opioid prescribing indicators had significant reductions associated with at least one policy.

Conclusions

Several state-level opioid prescribing policies were significantly associated with safer workers' compensation-related opioid prescribing practices during the first 3 months after injury (acute/subacute phase), which should in turn reduce transition to chronic opioids and associated negative health outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Sears JM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7839645 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionIn March 2016, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued opioid prescribing guidelines for chronic noncancer pain. In response, in April 2016, the North Carolina Medical Board launched the Safe Opioid Prescribing Initiative, an investigative program intended to limit the overprescribing of opioids. This study focuses on the association of the Safe Opioid Prescribing Initiative with immediate and sustained changes in opioid prescribing among all patients who received opioid and opioid discontinuation and tapering among patients who received high-dose (>90 milligrams of morphine equivalents), long-term (>90 days) opioid therapy.MethodsControlled and single interrupted time series analysis of opioid prescribing outcomes before and after the implementation of Safe Opioid Prescribing Initiative was conducted using deidentified data from the North Carolina Controlled Substances Reporting System from January 2010 through March 2017. Analysis was conducted in 2019-2020.ResultsIn an average study month, 513,717 patients, including patients who received 47,842 high-dose, long-term opioid therapy, received 660,912 opioid prescriptions at 1.3 prescriptions per patient. There was a 0.52% absolute decline (95% CI= -0.87, -0.19) in patients receiving opioid prescriptions in the month after Safe Opioid Prescribing Initiative implementation. Abrupt discontinuation, rapid tapering, and gradual tapering of opioids among patients who received high-dose, long-term opioid therapy increased by 1% (95% CI= -0.22, 2.23), 2.2% (95% CI=0.91, 3.47), and 1.3% (95% CI=0.96, 1.57), respectively, in the month after Safe Opioid Prescribing Initiative implementation.ConclusionsAlthough Safe Opioid Prescribing Initiative implementation was associated with an immediate decline in overall opioid prescribing, it was also associated with an unintended immediate increase in discontinuations and rapid tapering among patients who received high-dose, long-term opioid therapy. Better policy communication and prescriber education regarding opioid tapering best practices may help mitigate unintended consequences of statewide policies.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the effects of state opioid prescribing cap laws on opioid prescribing after surgery.Data sourcesOptumLabs Data Warehouse administrative claims data covering all 50 states from July 2012 through June 2019.Study designWe included individuals from 20 states that had implemented prescribing cap laws without exemptions for postsurgical pain by June 2019 and individuals from 16 control states plus the District of Columbia. We used a difference-in-differences approach accounting for differential timing in law implementation across states to estimate the effects of state prescribing cap laws on postsurgical prescribing of opioids. Outcome measures included filling an opioid prescription within 30 days after surgery; filling opioid prescriptions of specific doses or durations; and the number, days' supply, daily dose, and pill quantity of opioid prescriptions. To assess the validity of the parallel counterfactual trends assumption, we examined differences in outcome trends between law-implementing and control states in the years preceding law implementation using an equivalence testing framework.Data collection/extraction methodsWe included the first surgery in the study period for opioid-naïve individuals undergoing one of eight common surgical procedures.Principal findingsState prescribing cap laws were associated with 0.109 lower days' supply of postsurgical opioids on the log scale (95% Confidence Interval [CI]: -0.139, -0.080) but were not associated with the number (Average treatment effect on the treated [ATT]: -0.011; 95% CI: -0.043, 0.021) or daily dose of postsurgical opioid prescriptions (ATT: -0.013; 95% CI: -0.030, 0.005). The negative association observed between prescribing cap laws and the probability of filling a postsurgical opioid prescription (ATT: -0.041; 95% CI: -0.054, -0.028) was likely spurious, given differences between law-implementing and control states in the pre-law period.ConclusionsPrescribing cap laws appear to have minimal effects on postsurgical opioid prescribing.

Project description:BackgroundMany states have implemented opioid days' supply restriction policies, leading to reductions in opioid prescribing. Although research within certain provider types exist, no study has evaluated a restriction policy by various provider types.ObjectiveTo evaluate changes in opioid utilization following a days' supply restriction policy stratified by provider type: surgery, emergency medicine, primary care, specialty care, and dentistry.DesignInterrupted time series (ITS) PARTICIPANTS: Opioid prescription claims of patients in a private health plan serving a large Florida employer from 1/1/2015 to 3/31/2019. Provider types were determined using the Healthcare Provider Taxonomy Code associated with the national provider identifier (NPI).InterventionsFlorida's opioid restriction policy implemented on July 1, 2018.Main measuresChanges in mean morphine milligram equivalent (MMEs), mean days' supply, and mean number of units dispensed per opioid prescription before and after policy implementation.Key resultsThere were 10,583 opioid initial prescriptions dispensed. Treating providers were classified as surgery (16.4%; n = 1732), emergency care (14.3%; n = 1516), primary care (21.2%; n = 2241), specialty care (11.4%; n = 1207), and dentistry providers (23.7%; n = 2511). Significant reductions in mean days' supply were observed across most provider types ranging from 14% reduction for dentistry providers to 41% reduction for specialty care providers. Significant changes were observed for emergency care and specialty care providers with a 30% (p = 0.001)and 29% (p < 0.001) reduction in mean MME, respectively, and a 27% (p = 0.040) reduction in mean number of units dispensed in emergency care providers, after implementation. Pre-implementation trends in opioid prescribing varied by provider type impacting the effects of the opioid days' supply restriction policy.ConclusionsPre-policy opioid prescribing varied by provider type with a differential impact on mean MMEs, mean days' supply, and mean number of units dispensed per prescription following implementation.

Project description:ImportanceRisk of opioid use disorder, overdose, and death from prescription opioids increases as dosage, duration, and use of extended-release and long-acting formulations increase. States are well suited to respond to the opioid crisis through legislation, regulations, enforcement, surveillance, and other interventions.ObjectiveTo estimate temporal trends and geographic variations in 6 key opioid prescribing measures in 50 US states and the District of Columbia.Design, setting, and participantsPopulation-based cross-sectional analysis of opioid prescriptions filled nationwide at US retail pharmacies between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2017. Data were obtained from the IQVIA Xponent database. All US residents who had an opioid prescription filled at a US retail pharmacy were included.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcomes were annual amount of opioids prescribed in morphine milligram equivalents (MME) per person; mean duration per prescription in days; and 4 separate prescribing rates-for prescriptions 3 or fewer days, those 30 days or longer, those with a high daily dosage (≥90 MME), and those with extended-release and long-acting formulations.ResultsBetween 2006 and 2017, an estimated 233.7 million opioid prescriptions were filled in retail pharmacies in the United States each year. For all states combined, 4 measures decreased: (1) mean (SD) amount of opioids prescribed (mean [SD] decrease, 12.8% [12.6%]) from 628.4 (178.0) to 543.4 (158.6) MME per person, a statistically significant decrease in 23 states; (2) high daily dosage (mean [SD] decrease, 53.1% [13.6%]) from 12.3 (3.4) to 5.6 (1.7) per 100 persons, a statistically significant decrease in 49 states; (3) short-term (≤3 days) duration (mean [SD] decrease, 43.1% [9.4%]) from 18.0 (5.4) to 10.0 (2.5) per 100 persons, a statistically significant decrease in 48 states; and (4) extended-release and long-acting formulations (mean [SD] decrease, 14.7% [13.7%]) from 7.2 (1.9) to 6.0 (1.7) per 100 persons, a statistically significant decrease in 27 states. Two measures increased, each associated with the duration of prescription dispensed: (1) mean (SD) prescription duration (mean [SD] increase, 37.6% [6.9%]) from 13.0 (1.2) to 17.9 (1.4) days, a statistically significant increase in every state; and (2) prescriptions for a term of 30 days or longer (mean [SD] increase, 37.7% [28.9%]) from 18.3 (7.7) to 24.9 (10.7) per 100 persons, a statistically significant increase in 39 states. Two- to 3-fold geographic differences were observed across states, measured by comparing the ratio of each state's 90th to 10th percentile for each measure.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, across 12 years, the mean duration and prescribing rate for long-term prescriptions of opioids increased, whereas the amount of opioids prescribed per person and prescribing rate for high-dosage prescriptions, short-term prescriptions, and extended-release and long-acting formulations decreased. Some decreases were significant, but results were still high. Two- to 3-fold state variation in 5 measures occurred in most states. This information may help when state-specific intervention programs are being designed.

Project description:ImportanceThe Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released the "Guideline For Prescribing Opioids For Chronic Pain" (hereafter, CDC guideline) in 2016, but its association with prescribing practices for patients who are opioid naive is unknown.ObjectiveTo estimate changes in initial prescribing rates, duration, and dosage practices to patients who are opioid naive after the release of the CDC guideline.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study used 6 sequential cohorts to estimate preguideline trends in prescribing among patients who were opioid naive, project that trend forward, and compare it with postguideline prescribing practices. Participants included commercially insured adults without current cancer or hospice care diagnoses and with no past-year opioid claims in the US from 2011 to 2017. All adjusted models were controlled for patient demographics and state-fixed effects. Data were analyzed from January 2020 to May 2021.ExposuresThe release of the CDC guideline.Main outcomes and measuresIndicators of any opioid prescription fills during a 9-month period, the number of days' supply of the initial prescription, and the binary indicator of whether the initial prescription was for 50 or more morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) per day.ResultsThere were 12 870 612 eligible unique patients across cohorts (mean [SD] age in 2016, 51.2 [18.7] years; 6 553 458 [50.9%] women); and the mean (SD) age of the cohorts increased annually, from 48.7 (17.9) years in the April 2011 to December 2012 cohort to 51.9 (19.2) years in the April 2016 to December 2017 cohort. The postguideline prescribing prevalence was 532 962 of 5 834 088 individuals (9.1%), which exceeded that projected from the preguideline trend, estimated at 9.0% (95% CI, 9.0%-9.1%). Among patients receiving prescriptions during follow-up, adjusted mean days' supply was 4.7% (95% CI, 4.3%-5.1%) lower in the first year after release of the guideline and 9.8% (95% CI, 9.3%-10.3%) lower in the second year after release, compared with the expected rate from the preguideline trend. The adjusted odds of receiving a high-dose (ie, ≥50 MME/d) initial prescription were lower in the first year (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.96-0.98) and in the second year (odds ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.93-0.96) after the release of the CDC guideline compared with the odds expected from the preguideline trend.Conclusions and relevanceThis cohort study found that patients who were opioid naive continued to initiate opioid therapy after the release of opioid prescribing guidelines by the CDC, but trends in prescribing duration reversed and decreased, after increasing in each of 4 preguideline cohorts examined. High-dose prescribing rates were already decreasing, but those trends accelerated after the CDC guideline release. These results suggest that nonmandatory, evidence-based guidelines from trusted sources were associated with prescribing practices. Guideline-concordant care has potential to improve pain management and reduce opioid-related harms.

Project description:BackgroundTrials have shown that delayed antibiotic prescriptions (DPs) and point-of-care C-Reactive Protein testing (POC-CRPT) are effective in reducing antibiotic use in general practice, but these were not typically implemented in high-prescribing practices. We aimed to explore views of professionals from high-prescribing practices about uptake and implementation of DPs and POC-CRPT to reduce antibiotic use.MethodsThis was a qualitative focus group study in English general practices. The highest antibiotic prescribing practices in the West Midlands were invited to participate. Clinical and non-clinical professionals attended focus groups co-facilitated by two researchers. Focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically.ResultsNine practices (50 professionals) participated. Four main themes were identified. Compatibility of strategies with clinical roles and experience - participants viewed the strategies as having limited value as 'clinical tools', perceiving them as useful only in 'rare' instances of clinical uncertainty and/or for those less experienced. Strategies as 'social tools' - participants perceived the strategies as helpful for negotiating treatment decisions and educating patients, particularly those expecting antibiotics. Ambiguities - participants perceived ambiguities around when they should be used, and about their impact on antibiotic use. Influence of context - various other situational and practical issues were raised with implementing the strategies.ConclusionsHigh-prescribing practices do not view DPs and POC-CRPT as sufficiently useful 'clinical tools' in a way which corresponds to the current policy approach advocating their use to reduce clinical uncertainty and improve antimicrobial stewardship. Instead, policy attention should focus on how these strategies may instead be used as 'social tools' to reduce unnecessary antibiotic use. Attention should also focus on the many ambiguities (concerns and questions) about, and contextual barriers to, using these strategies that need addressing to support wider and more consistent implementation.