Dataset Information

Do Acupuncture Services Reduce Subsequent Utilization of Opioids and Surgical Interventions Compared to Noninvasive Therapies among Patients with Pain Conditions?

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To compare prescribed opioid use and invasive surgical interventions between patients using acupuncture and those using non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)/physical therapy (PT).

Design

Retrospective observational study of administrative claims.

Setting

Large commercial insurance plan.

Subjects

52 346 each treated with either acupuncture or NSAIDs/PT.

Methods

Users of acupuncture and NSAIDs/PT were identified from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2017. The first date of each service was defined as the index date. Acupuncture patients were 1:1 propensity score matched to the NSAIDs/PT group on baseline characteristics. Outcomes included opioid use, subsequent invasive surgical procedures, healthcare utilization such as hospitalizations or emergency department (ED) visits, and costs. These were assessed in the 12-month period before index date (baseline) and 12-month period following index date (follow-up) using difference-in-difference (DID) analysis. Results for opioid use were stratified by those with and without baseline opioid use.

Results

The acupuncture group had fewer patients initiating opioids post-index both among those with (49.2% vs 56.5%, P < .001) and without (15.9% vs 22.6%, P < .001) baseline opioid use. There was a small increase in invasive surgical procedures with acupuncture (3.1% vs 2.8%, P = .006). A reduction in ED visits was observed with acupuncture (DID -4.6% for all-cause; -3.3% for pain-related, all P < .001). Acupuncture was associated with higher total medical and pharmacy costs (DID +$1331 per patient, P = .006).

Conclusions

Acupuncture showed a modest effect in reducing opioid use and ED visits. More research on acupuncture's place in emergency care, pain relief, and comparison to other types of non-opioid treatment is needed.

SUBMITTER: Pham T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8633741 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:RATIONALE:Strong evidence supports use of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for patients with respiratory distress from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and heart failure (strong evidence conditions [SECs]). Despite unclear benefits of NIV for other causes of acute respiratory failure, utilization for conditions with weaker evidence is increasing, despite evidence demonstrating higher mortality for patients who suffer NIV failure (progression from NIV to invasive mechanical ventilation [IMV])) compared with being treated initially with IMV. OBJECTIVES:To determine the association of hospital variation in evidence-based utilization of NIV with patient outcomes. METHODS:Using the California State Inpatient Database 2011, we identified adult patients who received NIV. Patients were considered to have an SEC for NIV if they had an acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or heart failure. We used multivariable hierarchical logistic regression to determine the association between hospital rates of NIV use for SECs and patient risk of NIV failure (need for IMV after NIV). RESULTS:Among 22,706 hospitalizations with NIV as the initial ventilatory strategy, 6,820 (30.0%) had SECs. Patients with SECs had lower risk of NIV failure than patients with weak evidence conditions (8.1 vs. 18.2%, P < 0.0001). Regardless of underlying diagnosis, patients admitted to hospitals with greater use of NIV for SECs had lower risk of NIV failure (Quartile 4 vs. Quartile 1 adjusted odds ratio = 0.62; 95% CI = 0.49-0.80). Even patients without an SEC benefited from admission to hospitals that used NIV more often for patients with SECs (Quartile 4 vs. Quartile 1 adjusted odds ratio for NIV failure = 0.68; 95% CI = 0.52-0.88). CONCLUSIONS:Most patients who received NIV did not have conditions with strong supporting evidence for its use with wide institutional variation in patient selection for NIV. Surprisingly, we found that all patients, even those without an SEC, benefited from admission to hospitals with greater evidence-based utilization of NIV, suggesting a "hospital effect" that is synergistic with patient selection.