Joanna L. Starrels

Systematic Review: Treatment Agreements and Urine Drug Testing to Reduce Opioid Misuse in Patients With Chronic Pain

BACKGROUND Experts recommend opioid treatment agreements and urine drug testing to reduce opioid analgesia misuse, but evidence of their effectiveness has not been systematically reviewed. PURPOSE To synthesize studies of the association of treatment agreements and urine drug testing with opioid misuse outcomes in outpatients with chronic noncancer pain. DATA SOURCES MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials (January 1966 to June 2009), reference lists, and expert contacts. STUDY SELECTION Original research addressing opioid medications, chronic pain, and treatment agreements or urine drug testing, with a sample size of 50 participants or more and published in English, Spanish, or French. DATA EXTRACTION Two investigators independently identified eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed study quality. The outcome of opioid misuse was defined as drug abuse, drug misuse, aberrant drug-related behavior, diversion, or addiction. DATA SYNTHESIS Of 102 eligible studies, 11 met inclusion criteria; 6 were in pain clinics and 5 were in primary care settings. Four primary care studies examined multicomponent strategies that included interdisciplinary support. All studies were observational and rated as poor to fair quality. In 4 studies with comparison groups, opioid misuse was modestly reduced (7% to 23%) after treatment agreements with or without urine drug testing. In the other 7 studies, the proportion of patients with opioid misuse after treatment agreements, urine drug testing, or both varied widely (3% to 43%). LIMITATIONS Diversity of interventions and opioid misuse measures precluded meta-analysis. Most studies evaluated combinations of interventions. CONCLUSION Relatively weak evidence supports the effectiveness of opioid treatment agreements and urine drug testing in reducing opioid misuse by patients with chronic pain. Further research on effective ways to monitor and reduce opioid misuse is needed, especially in primary care settings. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Institute on Drug Abuse, and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Increasing Benzodiazepine Prescriptions and Overdose Mortality in the United States, 1996-2013.

OBJECTIVES To describe trends in benzodiazepine prescriptions and overdose mortality involving benzodiazepines among US adults. METHODS We examined data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey and multiple-cause-of-death data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. RESULTS Between 1996 and 2013, the percentage of adults filling a benzodiazepine prescription increased from 4.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.8%, 4.5%) to 5.6% (95% CI = 5.2%, 6.1%), with an annual percent change of 2.5% (95% CI = 2.1%, 3.0%). The quantity of benzodiazepines filled increased from 1.1 (95% CI = 0.9, 1.2) to 3.6 (95% CI = 3.0, 4.2) kilogram lorazepam equivalents per 100 000 adults (annual percent change = 9.0%; 95% CI = 7.6%, 10.3%). The overdose death rate increased from 0.58 (95% CI = 0.55, 0.62) to 3.07 (95% CI = 2.99, 3.14) per 100 000 adults, with a plateau seen after 2010. CONCLUSIONS Benzodiazepine prescriptions and overdose mortality have increased considerably. Fatal overdoses involving benzodiazepines have plateaued overall; however, no evidence of decreases was found in any group. Interventions to reduce the use of benzodiazepines or improve their safety are needed.

Racial Differences in Primary Care Opioid Risk Reduction Strategies

PURPOSE Racial disparities in treating pain with opioids are widely reported; however, differences in use of recommended strategies to reduce the risk of opioid misuse by race/ethnicity have not been evaluated. METHODS In a retrospective cohort of black and white patients with chronic noncancer pain prescribed opioid analgesics for at least 3 months, we assessed physicians’ use of 3 opioid risk reduction strategies: (1) urine drug testing, (2) regular office visits (at least 1 visit per 6 months on opioids and within 30 days of an opioid change), and (3) restricted early opioid refills (receipt of a refill >1 week early less than twice). Nonlinear mixed effect regression models accounted for clustering within physician and adjusted additively for demographics, substance abuse, mental health and medical comorbidities, health care factors, and practice site. RESULTS Of the 1,612 patients studied, 62.1% were black. Black patients were more likely than white patients to receive urine drug testing (10.4% vs 4.1%), regular office visits (56.4% vs 39.0%), and restricted early refills (79.4% vs 72.0%) (P <.001 for each). In fully adjusted models, black patients had significantly higher odds than their white counterparts of receiving regular office visits (odds ratio = 1.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.06–2.14) and restricted early refills (odds ratio = 1.55; 95% confidence interval, 1.03–2.32), but not urine drug testing (odds ratio = 1.41; 95% confidence interval, 0.78–2.54). CONCLUSIONS In this cohort of primary care patients receiving opioid analgesics on a long-term basis, use of risk reduction strategies was very limited overall; however, black patients were more likely than white patients to receive 2 of 3 guideline-recommended strategies. These data raise questions about lax monitoring, especially for white patients taking opioids long term.

Health outcomes and retention in care following release from prison for patients of an urban post-incarceration transitions clinic.

Chronic health conditions are overrepresented among prisoners who often face barriers to medical care following release. Transitions clinics seek to provide timely access to medical care following release. This retrospective cohort study investigated care delivery and health outcomes for recently released prisoners receiving care at the Bronx Transitions Clinic. Among 135 recently released prisoners, median time from release to initial medical visit was 10 days (IQ Range: 5–31). Six-month retention in care was high for HIV-infection (86%), but lower for opioid dependence (33%), hypertension (45%) and diabetes (43%). At six months, 54% of HIV-patients had a suppressed viral load, but fewer buprenorphine-treated patients reduced opioid use (19%), and fewer hypertensive and diabetic patients reached respective blood pressure (35%) and hemoglobin A1c (14%) goals. Access to medical care is necessary but not sufficient to control chronic health conditions. Additional interventions are necessary for formerly incarcerated people to achieve optimal health outcomes.

Can substance use disorders be managed using the Chronic Care Model? Review and recommendations from a NIDA Consensus Group.

Brain imaging and genetic studies over the past two decades suggest that substance use disorders are best considered chronic illnesses. The passing of the Affordable Care Act in the United States has set the occasion for integrating treatment of substance use disorders into mainstream healthcare; and for using the proactive, team-oriented Chronic Care Model (CCM). This paper systematically examines and compares whether and how well the CCM could be applied to the treatment of substance use disorders, using type 2 diabetes as a comparator. The chronic illness management approach is still new in the field of addiction and research is limited. However comparative findings suggest that most proactive, team treatment-oriented clinical management practices now used in diabetes management are applicable to the substance use disorders; capable of being implemented by primary care teams; and should offer comparable potential benefits in the treatment of substance use disorders. Such care should also improve the quality of care for many illnesses now negatively affected by unaddressed substance abuse.

Prior buprenorphine experience is associated with office-based buprenorphine treatment outcomes

Objectives:As buprenorphine treatment and illicit buprenorphine use increase, many patients seeking buprenorphine treatment will have had prior experience with buprenorphine. Little evidence is available to guide optimal treatment strategies for patients with prior buprenorphine experience. We examined whether prior buprenorphine experience was associated with treatment retention and opioid use. We also explored whether type of prior buprenorphine use (prescribed or illicit use) was associated with these treatment outcomes. Methods:We analyzed interview and medical record data from a longitudinal cohort study of 87 individuals who initiated office-based buprenorphine treatment. We examined associations between prior buprenorphine experience and 6-month treatment retention using logistic regression models, and prior buprenorphine experience and any self-reported opioid use at 1, 3, and 6 months using nonlinear mixed models. Results:Most (57.4%) participants reported prior buprenorphine experience; of these, 40% used prescribed buprenorphine and 60% illicit buprenorphine only. Compared with buprenorphine-naïve participants, those with prior buprenorphine experience had better treatment retention (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 2.65, 95% CI = 1.05-6.70). Similar associations that did not reach significance were found when exploring prescribed and illicit buprenorphine use. There was no difference in opioid use when comparing participants with prior buprenorphine experience with those who were buprenorphine-naive (AOR = 1.33, 95% CI = 0.38-4.65). Although not significant, qualitatively different results were found when exploring opioid use by type of prior buprenorphine use (prescribed buprenorphine vs buprenorphine-naïve, AOR = 2.20, 95% CI = 0.58-8.26; illicit buprenorphine vs buprenorphine-naïve, AOR = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.07-3.46). Conclusions:Prior buprenorphine experience was common and associated with better retention. Understanding how prior buprenorphine experience affects treatment outcomes has important clinical and public health implications.

Public Health Detailing-A Successful Strategy to Promote Judicious Opioid Analgesic Prescribing.

OBJECTIVES To evaluate knowledge and prescribing changes following a 2-month public health detailing campaign (one-to-one educational visits) about judicious opioid analgesic prescribing conducted among health care providers in Staten Island, New York City, in 2013. METHODS Three detailing campaign recommendations were (1) a 3-day supply of opioids is usually sufficient for acute pain, (2) avoid prescribing opioids for chronic noncancer pain, and (3) avoid high-dose opioid prescriptions. Evaluation consisted of a knowledge survey, and assessing prescribing rates and median day supply per prescription. Prescribing data from the 3-month period before the campaign were compared with 2 sequential 3-month periods after the campaign. RESULTS Among 866 health care providers visited, knowledge increased for all 3 recommendations (P < .01). After the campaign, the overall prescribing rate decreased similarly in Staten Island and other New York City counties (boroughs), but the high-dose prescribing rate decreased more in Staten Island than in other boroughs (P < .01). Median day supply remained stable in Staten Island and increased in other boroughs. CONCLUSIONS The public health detailing campaign improved knowledge and likely prescribing practices and could be considered by other jurisdictions to promote judicious opioid prescribing.

Aberrant drug-related behaviors: A qualitative analysis of medical record documentation in patients referred to an HIV/Chronic pain clinic

BACKGROUND Due to rising rates of opioid addiction and overdose among individuals on chronic opioid therapy, aberrant drug-related behaviors (ADRBs) are an important and challenging issue. Our objective was to qualitatively investigate the documentation of ADRBs in the medical record. METHODS Manually abstracted provider notes from an HIV primary care clinic were analyzed using content analysis methods. RESULTS Categories of ADRBs identified included patients requesting opioids, obtaining nonprescribed opioids, and becoming emotional about opioids. We also identified several types of provider language used when documenting ADRBs, including purely descriptive language and emotional language such as labeling, frustration, and concern, and responses such as setting conditions for opioid prescription and action-oriented language. CONCLUSIONS The impact of including emotional language in the medical record is unknown. Development of instruments that can be used to facilitate ADRB documentation, as well as evidence-based approaches to addressing ADRBs, is needed.

Pain is not associated with worse office-based buprenorphine treatment outcomes.

Physical pain is common among individuals seeking treatment for opioid dependence. Pain may negatively impact addiction treatment. The authors prospectively studied opioid-dependent individuals initiating office-based buprenorphine treatment, comparing buprenorphine treatment outcomes (treatment retention and opioid use) among participants with and without pain (baseline pain or persistent pain). Among 82 participants, 60% reported baseline pain and 38% reported persistent pain. Overall, treatment retention was 56% and opioid use decreased from 89% to 26% over 6 months. In multivariable analyses, the authors found no association between pain and buprenorphine treatment outcomes. Opioid-dependent individuals with and without pain can achieve similar success with buprenorphine treatment.

Management of problematic behaviours among individuals on long-term opioid therapy: protocol for a Delphi study

Introduction Given the sharp rise in opioid prescribing and heightened recognition of opioid addiction and overdose, opioid safety has become a priority. Clinical guidelines on long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) for chronic pain consistently recommend routine monitoring and screening for problematic behaviours. Yet, there is no consensus definition regarding what constitutes a problematic behaviour, and recommendations for appropriate management to inform front-line providers, researchers and policymakers are lacking. This creates a barrier to effective guideline implementation. Thus, our objective is to present the protocol for a Delphi study designed to: (1) elicit expert opinion to identify the most important problematic behaviours seen in clinical practice and (2) develop consensus on how these behaviours should be managed in the context of routine clinical care. Methods/analysis We will include clinical experts, defined as individuals who provide direct patient care to adults with chronic pain who are on LTOT in an ambulatory setting, and for whom opioid prescribing for chronic non-malignant pain is an area of expertise. The Delphi study will be conducted online in 4 consecutive rounds. Participants will be asked to list problematic behaviours and identify which behaviours are most common and challenging. They will then describe how they would manage the most frequently occurring common and challenging behaviours, rating the importance of each management strategy. Qualitative analysis will be used to categorise behaviours and management strategies, and consensus will be based on a definition established a priori. Ethics/dissemination This study has been approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). This study will generate Delphi-based expert consensus on the management of problematic behaviours that arise in individuals on LTOT, which we will publish and disseminate to appropriate professional societies. Ultimately, our findings will provide guidance to front-line providers, researchers and policymakers.