Dataset Information

Association of Emergency Department Opioid Administration With Ongoing Opioid Use: A Retrospective Cohort Study of Patients With Back Pain.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Opioids are commonly administered in the emergency department (ED) and prescribed for the treatment of back pain. It is important to understand the unintended consequences of this approach to inform treatment decisions and the consideration of alternative treatments. Recent evidence has shown that ED opioid prescriptions are associated with future opioid use. The objective of this study was to measure the association of opioid administration in the ED to patients treated for back pain with future opioid use.

Methods

This is a retrospective study of opioid-naïve adults discharged from the ED with a diagnosis of back pain. Patients were stratified by opioid therapy (none, ED administration only, prescription only, or ED administration + prescription). Relative risks of ongoing opioid use (filling >90-day supply in 180 days following ED visit as documented in the prescription drug monitoring program) were calculated for each opioid-therapy group and compared to the no-opioid group.

Results

We identified 24,487 opioid naïve back pain patients. The median age was 38 years, 55% were female, and 56% were non-Hispanic white. A total of 41% received no opioid, 10% were only administered an opioid in the ED, 18% only received a prescription, and 31% received an opioid in the ED + prescription. The adjusted relative risks of ongoing use compared to the no opioid group were as follows: ED only 1.9, prescription only 2.1, and ED + prescription 2.3. The increased risk persisted for other definitions of ongoing use and after adjustment for baseline pain scores.

Conclusions

For opioid-naïve patients with back pain, both administration of an opioid in the ED and opioid prescriptions are associated with a doubling of the risk of ongoing opioid use compared to patients not treated with opioids. This supports the consideration of minimizing exposure to opioids while treating back pain in the ED.

SUBMITTER: Heard K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8079173 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionRacial disparities in pain management have been reported among emergency department (ED) patients. In this study we evaluated the association between patients' self-identified race/ethnicity and the administration of opioid analgesia among ED patients with abdominal pain, the most common chief complaint for ED presentations in the United States.MethodsThis was a retrospective cohort study of adult (age ≥18 years) patients who presented to the ED of a single center with abdominal pain from January 1, 2019-December 31, 2020. We collected demographic and clinical information, including patients' race and ethnicity, from the electronic health record. The primary outcome was the ED administration of any opioid analgesic (binary). Secondary outcomes included the administration of non-opioid analgesia (binary) and administration of any analgesia (binary). We used logistic regression models to estimate odds ratios (OR) of the association between a patient's race/ethnicity and analgesia administration. Covariates included age, sex, initial pain score, Emergency Severity Index, and ED visits in the prior 30 days. Subgroup analyses were performed in non-pregnant patients, those who underwent any imaging study, were admitted to the hospital, and who underwent surgery within 24 hours of ED arrival.ResultsWe studied 7,367 patients: 45% (3,314) were non-Hispanic (NH) White; 28% (2,092) were Hispanic/Latinx; 19% (1,384) were NH Black, and 8% (577) were Asian. Overall, 44% (3,207) of patients received opioid analgesia. In multivariable regression models, non-White patients were less likely to receive opioid analgesia compared with White patients (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.65-0.83 for Hispanic/Latinx patients; OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.54-0.72 for Black patients; and OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.52-0.78 for Asian patients). Black patients were also less likely to receive non-opioid analgesia, and Black and Hispanic/Latinx patients were less likely than White patients to receive any analgesia. The associations were similar across subgroups; however, the association was attenuated among patients who underwent surgery within 24 hours of ED arrival.ConclusionHispanic/Latinx, Black, and Asian patients were significantly less likely to receive opioid analgesia than White patients when presenting to the ED with abdominal pain. Black patients were also less likely than White patients to receive non-opioid analgesia.

Project description:Study objectiveDespite the frequent use of opioids to treat acute pain, the long-term risks and analgesic benefits of an opioid prescription for an individual emergency department (ED) patient with acute pain are still poorly understood and inadequately quantified. Our objective was to determine the frequency of recurrent or persistent opioid use during the 6 months after the ED visit METHODS: This was a prospective, observational cohort study of opioid-naive patients presenting to 2 EDs for acute pain who were prescribed an opioid at discharge. Patients were followed by telephone 6 months after the ED visit. Additionally, we reviewed the statewide prescription monitoring program database. Outcomes included frequency of recurrent and persistent opioid use and frequency of persistent moderate or severe pain 6 months after the ED visit. Persistent opioid use was defined as filling greater than or equal to 6 prescriptions during the 6-month study period.ResultsDuring 9 months beginning in November 2017, 733 patients were approached for participation. Four hundred eighty-four met inclusion criteria and consented to participate. Four hundred ten patients (85%) provided 6-month telephone data. The prescription monitoring database was reviewed for all 484 patients (100%). Most patients (317/484, 66%; 95% confidence interval 61% to 70%) filled only the initial prescription they received in the ED. One in 5 patients (102/484, 21%; 95% confidence interval 18% to 25%) filled at least 2 prescriptions within the 6-month period. Five patients (1%; 95% confidence interval 0% to 2%) met criteria for persistent opioid use. Of these 5 patients, all but 1 reported moderate or severe pain in the affected body part 6 months later.ConclusionAlthough 1 in 5 opioid-naive ED patients who received an opioid prescription for acute pain on ED discharge filled at least 2 opioid prescriptions in 6 months, only 1% had persistent opioid use. These patients with persistent opioid use were likely to report moderate or severe pain 6 months after the ED visit.

Project description:Many studies have shown the tendency for people without a regular care provider or primary physician to make greater use of emergency departments. We sought to determine the effects of three aspects of care provided by primary physicians (physician specialty, continuity of care and comprehensiveness of care) on their patients' use of the emergency department.Using provincial administrative databases, we created a cohort of 367,315 adults aged 18 years and older. Participants were residents of urban areas of Quebec. Affiliation with a primary physician, the specialty of this physician (i.e., family physician v. specialist), continuity of care (as measured using the Usual Provider Continuity index) and comprehensiveness of care (i.e., number of complete annual examinations) were measured among participants (n = 311,701) who had visited a physician three or more times during a two-year baseline period. We used multivariable negative binomial regression to investigate the relationships between measures of care and the number of visits to emergency departments during a 12-month follow-up period.Among participants under 65 years of age, emergency department use was higher for those not affiliated than for those affiliated with a family physician (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-1.16) or a specialist (IRR 1.10, 95% CI 1.04-1.17). Among patients aged 65 years and older, having a specialist primary physician, as opposed to a family physician, predicted increased use of the emergency department (IRR 1.13, 95% CI 1.09-1.17). Greater continuity of care with a family physician predicted less use of the emergency department only among participants who made 25 or more visits to a physician during the baseline period. Greater continuity of care with a specialist predicted less use of the emergency department overall, particularly among participants with intermediate numbers of multimorbidities and admissions to hospital. Greater comprehensiveness of care by family physicians predicted less use of the emergency department.Efforts to increase the proportion of adults affiliated with a family physician should target older adults, people who visit physicians more frequently and people with multiple comorbidities and admissions to hospital.

Project description:BackgroundVisits to the emergency department are critical opportunities to engage individuals after an overdose. We sought to estimate and compare the 12-month mortality between persons with visits to the emergency department related to opioid overdose and those with non-overdose-related visits.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study using the Provincial Overdose Cohort, which contains data for patients in British Columbia who had an opioid-related overdose between 2015 and 2017, along with a 20% random sample of BC residents for comparison. We examined all nonfatal visits to the emergency department between Jan. 1, 2015, and Dec. 31, 2016, among persons aged 14 to 74 years and compared the 12-month mortality between those with overdose-related visits and those with non-overdose-related visits. We estimated the hazard ratio for death, with adjustment for age, sex, comorbidity and disposition (discharged or left against medical advice).ResultsWe included 3593 persons with overdose-related visits and 216 453 with non-overdose-related visits to the emergency department. Those with overdose-related visits were younger, were predominantly male and had more mental health conditions. The 12-month crude mortality probability was 5.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.7%-6.2%) in this group and 1.7% (95% CI 1.6%-1.8%) among those with non-overdose-related visits. After adjustment, for persons who were discharged, the 12-month mortality hazard was 3.5 (95% CI 3.0-4.2) times higher among those with overdose-related visits than those with non-overdose-related visits. For persons who left against medical advice, the mortality hazard was 7.1 (95% CI 4.0-12.5) times higher among those with opioid overdose.InterpretationAmong persons with overdose-related visits to the emergency department, 12-month mortality was higher than among those with non-overdose-related visits. Overdose-related visits should prompt urgent evidence-based interventions (e.g., take-home naloxone kits, buprenorphine-naloxone induction) to prevent future deaths.

Project description:ImportanceAlthough substantial evidence supports buprenorphine for treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) in controlled trials, prospective study of patient outcomes in clinical implementation of emergency department (ED) buprenorphine treatment is lacking.ObjectiveTo examine the association between buprenorphine treatment in the ED and follow-up engagement in OUD treatment 1 month later.Design, setting, and participantsThis multisite cohort study was conducted in 7 California EDs participating in a statewide implementation project to improve access to buprenorphine treatment. The study population included ED patients aged at least 18 years identified with OUD between April 1, 2021, and June 30, 2022. Data analysis was performed in October 2023.ExposureAll participants were offered buprenorphine treatment for OUD (either in ED administration, prescription, or both), the uptake of which was examined as the exposure of interest.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was engagement in OUD treatment 30 days after the ED visit, determined by patient report or clinical documentation. The association of ED buprenorphine treatment with subsequent OUD treatment engagement was estimated using hierarchical generalized linear models.ResultsThis analysis included 464 ED patients with OUD. Their median age was 36.0 (IQR, 29.0-38.7) years, and most were men (343 [73.9%]). With regard to race and ethnicity, 64 patients (13.8%) self-identified as non-Hispanic Black, 183 (39.4%) as Hispanic, and 185 as non-Hispanic White (39.9%). Most patients (396 [85.3%]) had Medicaid insurance, and more than half (262 [57.8%]) had unstable housing. Self-reported fentanyl use (242 [52.2%]) and a comorbid mental health condition (328 [71.5%]) were common. Interest in buprenorphine treatment was high: 398 patients (85.8%) received buprenorphine treatment; 269 (58.0%) were administered buprenorphine in the ED and 339 (73.1%) were prescribed buprenorphine. With regard to OUD treatment engagement at 30 days after the ED visit, 198 participants (49.7%) who received ED buprenorphine treatment remained engaged compared with 15 participants (22.7%) who did not receive ED buprenorphine treatment. An association of ED buprenorphine treatment with subsequent OUD treatment engagement at 30 days was observed (adjusted risk ratio, 1.97 [95% CI, 1.27-3.07]).Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this cohort study suggest that among patients with OUD presenting to EDs implementing low-threshold access to medications for OUD, buprenorphine treatment was associated with a substantially higher likelihood of follow-up treatment engagement 1 month later. Future research should investigate techniques to optimize both the uptake and effectiveness of buprenorphine initiation in low-threshold settings such as the ED.

Project description:BackgroundPeripregnancy emergency department use may be common, but data specific to health care systems like that in Canada are lacking. As prior research was limited to livebirths, omitting pregnancies ending in miscarriage or induced abortion, the current study quantified and characterized emergency department use among women in Ontario with a recognized pregnancy.MethodsThis retrospective population-based cohort study included all recognized pregnancies among Ontario residents aged 10-55 years with an estimated date of conception between Apr. 1, 2002, and Mar. 31, 2017. We defined peripregnancy emergency department use as any emergency department visit during pregnancy or within 42 days after pregnancy. We used modified Poisson regression with a robust error variance to generate relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the outcome of any peripregnancy emergency department use in association with maternal age, parity, residential income quintile, location of residence, immigrant status, antenatal care provider and number of comorbidities within 120 days before the clinical start of the pregnancy (expressed as total number of Aggregated Diagnosis Groups [ADGs] obtained with the Johns Hopkins Adjusted Clinical Group System). All RRs, except for number of comorbidities, were further adjusted for number of ADGs.ResultsPeripregnancy emergency department use occurred in 1 075 991 (39.4%) of 2 728 236 recognized pregnancies, including 35.8% of livebirths, 47.3% of stillbirths, 73.7% of miscarriages and 84.8% of threatened abortions. A peripregnancy emergency department visit was more likely among women who were less than 25 years of age (adjusted RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.16-1.17), were nulliparous (adjusted RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.13-1.13), resided in the lowest income quintile area (adjusted RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.15-1.16) or in a rural area (adjusted RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.50-1.51), were Canadian-born (adjusted RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.22-1.23), were not seen by an obstetrician (adjusted RR 1.66, 95% CI 1.54-1.80) or had a greater number of ADGs. Emergency department use peaked in the first trimester and in the first week postpartum. Compared to women residing in urban areas, those residing in rural areas had an odds ratio (OR) of 3.44 (95% CI 3.39-3.49) for 3 or more emergency department visits. Women with 3-4 (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.97-2.01), 5-6 (OR 3.55, 95% CI 3.49-3.61), or 7 or more (OR 7.59, 95% CI 7.39-7.78) prepregnancy comorbidities were more likely to have 3 or more peripregnancy emergency department visits than were those with 2 or fewer comorbidities.InterpretationPeripregnancy emergency department use occurred in nearly 40% of pregnancies, notably in the first trimester and early in the postpartum period. Efforts are needed to streamline rapid access to ambulatory obstetric care during these peak periods, when women are susceptible to miscarriage or a complication after a livebirth.