Search

Background: Medications for opioid use disorders (MOUDs) are effective, but most people with opioid use disorder (OUD) do not receive treatment. Prior research has explored patients' structural barriers to access and perceptions of MOUD. Little research has considered treatment knowledge and perceptions outside of the patient population. Members of the public without OUD themselves (eg, family, friends) can significantly influence treatment decisions of persons with OUD. Considering these gaps, we conducted an original survey with a diverse sample of US adults to explore knowledge and preferences toward OUD treatments., Methods: We conducted an online survey with 1505 White, Black, and Latino/a Americans including a small percentage (8.5%) with self-reported lifetime OUD. The survey used vignettes to describe hypothetical patients with OUD, provide basic treatment information (ie, methadone, buprenorphine, naltrexone, nonmedication treatment), and then assessed treatment preferences. Using multivariable logistic regression, we examined associations between covariates of interest (eg, perceived access, knowledge, demographics) and preference for MOUD versus nonmedication treatment., Results: There were 523 White, 502 Black, and 480 Latino/a respondents. Across racial/ethnic subsamples, respondents had the greatest knowledge of nonmedication treatments, with Black (72.7%) and Latino/a (70.2%) respondents having significantly greater knowledge compared to White respondents (61.8%). However, after viewing the vignette, a greater proportion of respondents chose methadone (35.8%) or buprenorphine (34.8%) as their first-choice treatment for hypothetical patients. Multivariable logistic regression suggested that among Black respondents, those with knowledge of nonmedication treatment were more likely to choose MOUD than those without knowledge (odds ratio = 2.41, 95% confidence interval = 1.34-4.34). Perceived treatment access did not affect treatment choice., Conclusions: Across racial groups, knowledge and perceived access to nonmedication treatment was greater than for MOUD, but many still selected MOUD as a first-choice treatment. Significant findings emphasized the importance of treatment knowledge around decision-making, highlighting opportunities for tailored education efforts to improve uptake of evidence-based treatment., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: None. The authors have no conflicts of interest to report. AB served as an expert witness in cases against opioid distributors.

Background/objectives: Chronic pain is an opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment barrier and associated with poor outcomes in OUD treatment including relapse. Fibromyalgia is a chronic pain condition related to central nervous system substrates that overlap with the brain disease model of OUD. We know of no studies that have looked at non-treatment seeking individuals, to see if fibromyalgia might represent a barrier to OUD treatment. Given many non-treatment-seeking individuals previously attempted recovery before experiencing relapse, and chronic pain is a known precipitant of relapse, fibromyalgia might be a currently unappreciated modifiable factor in OUD relapse and, potentially, a barrier to treatment reengagement among those not currently seeking treatment. This study aimed to determine if fibromyalgia is associated with greater odds of agreeing that 'I have tried to stop using opioids before, but pain caused me to relapse' among non-treatment seeking individuals with OUD., Methods: This cross-sectional study recruited non-treatment-seeking individuals with OUD ( n  = 141) from a syringe service program. Ordinal logistic regression was used to determine if the presence of fibromyalgia increased the odds of agreement with prior pain-precipitated relapse., Results: Fibromyalgia was identified in 35% of study participants and associated with 125% greater odds of strongly agreeing that pain had previously caused them to relapse, even after accounting for relevant covariates, including age, sex, depression, anxiety, OUD severity, and pain severity., Conclusions: This study provides early evidence that the presence of fibromyalgia may be associated with increased odds of pain-precipitated OUD relapse.

Introduction: Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) including methadone (MMT), buprenorphine (BUP), and naltrexone (NTX) are safe and effective. However, there are significant negative perceptions surrounding MOUD, creating barriers to uptake. While research on MOUD stigma has largely focused on provider and patient experiences, fewer studies have explored MOUD perceptions among the general public. Given that MOUD stigma expressed by social ties surrounding individuals with OUD can influence treatment choices, we assessed MOUD perceptions among U.S. adults to determine how beliefs impacted treatment preference. We further explored how MOUD perceptions may be amplified among racialized groups with histories of experiencing drug-related discrimination., Methods: The study collected survey data from a diverse sample of U.S. adults (n = 1508) between October 2020 and January 2021. The survey measured knowledge of MOUD and non-medication treatments, relative agreement with common MOUD perceptions, and treatment preferences. Multinomial logistic regression analysis tested associations with treatment preference, stratified by race/ethnicity., Results: Descriptive results indicated that across groups, many respondents (66.8 %) had knowledge of MOUD, but believed MOUD was a "substitute" for opioids and had some degree of concern about misuse. Multivariable results showed knowledge of non-medication treatments was positively associated with MOUD preference among White (MMT OR = 3.16, 95 % CI = 1.35-7.39; BUP OR = 2.69, CI = 1.11-6.47), Black (MMT OR = 3.91, CI = 1.58-9.69), and Latino/a (MMT OR = 5.12, CI = 1.99-13.2; BUP OR = 3.85, CI = 1.5-9.87; NTX OR = 4.51, CI = 1.44-14.06) respondents. Among White respondents, we identified positive associations between MOUD experience and buprenorphine preference (OR = 4.33, CI = 1.17-16.06); non-medication treatment experience and preference for buprenorphine (OR = 2.86, CI = 1.03-7.94) and naltrexone (OR = 3.17, CI = 1.08-9.28). Concerns around misuse of methadone were negatively associated with methadone preference among White (OR = 0.65, CI = 0.43-0.98) and Latino/a (OR = 0.49, CI = 0.34-0.7), and concerns around misuse of buprenorphine was negatively associated with preference for MOUD among White (MMT OR = 0.62, CI = 0.39-0.99; BUP OR = 0.48, CI = 0.3-0.77; NTX OR = 0.6, CI = 0.36-0.99) and Latino/a (BUP OR = 0.59, CI = 0.39-0.89) respondents., Conclusions: This analysis offers critical insights into treatment perceptions beyond the patient population, finding that negative beliefs around MOUD are common and negatively associated with preferences for medication-based treatment. These findings highlight implications for public support of evidence-based treatment and lay the groundwork for future interventions addressing public stigma toward MOUD., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Pooja Lagisetty reports financial support was provided by National Institute on Drug Abuse. Amy Bohnert reports financial support was provided by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. Amy Bohnert reports financial support was provided by Michigan Department of Health and Human Services. Amy Bohnert reports a relationship with State of Michigan that includes: paid expert testimony. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Increasing access to naloxone (an opioid antagonist that can reverse overdose) could slow the US opioid epidemic. Prior studies suggest cost sharing may be a barrier to dispensing of naloxone prescriptions, but these studies were limited by their cross-sectional designs and use of databases that do not capture prescriptions that are not filled (abandoned)., Objective: To evaluate the association between cost sharing and naloxone prescription abandonment (nondispensing of naloxone prescriptions)., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional, regression discontinuity analysis exploited the fact that deductibles typically reset at the beginning of the year in commercial and Medicare plans. The included data were derived from the 2020-2021 IQVIA Formulary Impact Analyzer (a pharmacy transactions database that represents 63% of prescriptions at US pharmacies). The analysis included claims for naloxone nasal spray among commercially insured patients and Medicare patients that occurred during the 60 days before January 1, 2021, through 59 days after January 1, 2021., Exposure: Cost sharing, which is defined as the amount patients would have to pay to fill prescriptions., Main Outcomes and Measures: Local linear regression models were used to assess for abrupt changes in cost sharing and the probability of prescription abandonment on January 1, 2021. To estimate the association between cost sharing and prescription abandonment, a fuzzy regression discontinuity analysis was conducted., Results: These analyses included naloxone claims for 71 306 commercially insured patients and 101 706 Medicare patients (40 019 [56.1%] and 61 410 [60.4%], respectively, were female). The commercially insured patients and Medicare patients accounted for 73 311 and 106 076 naloxone claims, respectively. On January 1, 2021, the mean cost sharing per claim increased by $15.0 (95% CI, $13.8-$16.2) for commercially insured patients and increased by $12.3 (95% CI, $10.9-$13.6) for Medicare patients and the probability of abandonment increased by 4.7 (95% CI, 3.2-6.2) percentage points and 2.8 (95% CI, 1.6-4.1) percentage points, respectively. The results from the fuzzy regression discontinuity analysis suggest a decision by commercial and Medicare plans to increase naloxone cost sharing by $10 would be associated with percentage-point increases of 3.1 (95% CI, 2.2-4.1) and 2.3 (95% CI, 1.4-3.2), respectively, in the probability of abandonment., Conclusions: The elimination of cost sharing might be associated with increased naloxone dispensing to commercially insured and Medicare patients.

Background: Patterns of opioid use vary, including prescribed use without aberrancy, limited aberrant use, and potential opioid use disorder (OUD). In clinical practice, similar opioid-related International Classification of Disease (ICD) codes are applied across this spectrum, limiting understanding of how groups vary by sociodemographic factors, comorbidities, and long-term risks., Objective: (1) Examine how Veterans assigned opioid abuse/dependence ICD codes vary at diagnosis and with respect to long-term risks. (2) Determine whether those with limited aberrant use share more similarities to likely OUD vs those using opioids as prescribed., Design: Longitudinal observational cohort study., Participants: National sample of Veterans categorized as having (1) likely OUD, (2) limited aberrant opioid use, or (3) prescribed, non-aberrant use based upon enhanced medical chart review., Main Measures: Comparison of sociodemographic and clinical factors at diagnosis and rates of age-adjusted mortality, non-fatal opioid overdose, and hospitalization after diagnosis. An exploratory machine learning analysis investigated how closely those with limited aberrant use resembled those with likely OUD., Key Results: Veterans (n = 483) were categorized as likely OUD (62.1%), limited aberrant use (17.8%), and prescribed, non-aberrant use (20.1%). Age, proportion experiencing homelessness, chronic pain, anxiety disorders, and non-opioid substance use disorders differed by group. All-cause mortality was high (44.2 per 1000 person-years (95% CI 33.9, 56.7)). Hospitalization rates per 1000 person-years were highest in the likely OUD group (831.5 (95% CI 771.0, 895.5)), compared to limited aberrant use (739.8 (95% CI 637.1, 854.4)) and prescribed, non-aberrant use (411.9 (95% CI 342.6, 490.4). The exploratory analysis reclassified 29.1% of those with limited aberrant use as having likely OUD with high confidence., Conclusions: Veterans assigned opioid abuse/dependence ICD codes are heterogeneous and face variable long-term risks. Limited aberrant use confers increased risk compared to no aberrant use, and some may already have OUD. Findings warrant future investigation of this understudied population., (© 2022. This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply.)

Background: This study examined factors associated with treatment recommendations for patients with a new diagnosis of opioid use disorder (OUD), comparing recommendations for patients with clear signs of OUD versus those with lower likelihood of OUD., Methods: The study conducted a retrospective medical chart review in a randomly selected national sample of 520 Veteran Health Administration patients with a new opioid-related electronic health record (EHR) diagnosis from 2012 to 2017. The study categorized patients as having "high likelihood" or "lower likelihood of OUD" based on the presence or absence of clinician documentation in medical records of specific qualifying criteria (e.g., clinician documentation of patient meeting diagnostic criteria for OUD, etc). Analyses examined the association between baseline demographic and clinical characteristics with recommendations for medication and other treatments for OUD., Results: Among patients with a new diagnosis of OUD, 28.7 % (n = 149) were recommended medication treatment, 52.5 % (n = 273) were recommended specialty substance use disorder (SUD) treatment, and 41.9 % (n = 218) were recommended treatment in non-SUD mental health settings. In adjusted models, high likelihood of OUD (AOR 8.31, 95 % CI 4.81-15.03) was strongly associated with the clinician recommending medications for OUD, while age 56-75 (compared to <35, AOR 0.36, 95 % CI 0.18-0.69), stimulant use disorder (AOR 0.28, 95 % CI 0.15-0.53), and rural residence (AOR 0.51, 95 % CI 0.30-0.85) were associated with lower likelihood of being recommended medication treatment., Conclusions: Differentiating among patients with EHR diagnoses of OUD to identify the subset with higher likelihood of underlying OUD is important to accurately understand OUD treatment rates and disparities. However, even among patients with a clear diagnosis of OUD, medication treatment is still recommended less often than other treatments, suggesting interventions are needed to encourage clinicians to prioritize medication treatment as a first-line treatment, especially for older, rural patients and those with polysubstance use., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: To determine the effect of prescription opioid use in the year before surgery on opioid consumption after surgery., Background: Recently developed postoperative opioid prescribing guidelines rely on data from opioid-naïve patients. However, opioid use in the USA is common, and the impact of prior opioid exposure on the consumption of opioids after surgery is unclear., Methods: Population-based cohort study of 26,001 adults 18 years of age and older who underwent one of nine elective general or gynecologic surgical procedures between January 1, 2017 and October 31, 2019, with prospectively collected patient-reported data from the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative (MSQC) linked to state prescription drug monitoring program at 70 MSQC-participating hospitals on 30-day patient-reported opioid consumption in oral morphine equivalents (OME) (primary outcome)., Results: Compared with opioid-naïve participants, opioid-exposed participants (26% of sample) consumed more prescription opioids after surgery (adjusted OME difference 12, 95% CI 10 to 14). Greater opioid exposure was associated with higher postoperative consumption in a dose-dependent manner, with chronic users reporting the greatest consumption (additional OMEs 32, 95% CI 21 to 42). However, for eight of nine procedures, 90% of opioid-exposed participants consumed ≤150 OMEs. Among those receiving perioperative prescriptions, opioid-exposed participants had higher likelihood of refill (adjusted OR 4.7, 95% CI 4.4 to 5.1), number of refills (adjusted incidence rate ratio 4.0, 95% CI 3.7 to 4.3), and average refill amount (adjusted OME difference 333, 95% CI 292 to 374))., Conclusions: Preoperative opioid use is associated with small increases in patient-reported opioid consumption after surgery for most patients, though greater differences exist for patients with chronic use. For most patients with preoperative opioid exposure, existing guidelines may meet their postoperative needs. However, guidelines may need tailoring for patients with chronic use, and providers should anticipate a higher likelihood of postoperative refills for all opioid-exposed patients., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MCB has received consulting fees from Axial Healthcare and Alosa Health. CMB has served as a consultant for Heron Therapeutics, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, and Alosa Health, and provides expert medicolegal testimony. Otherwise the authors declare no competing interests., (© American Society of Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine 2022. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The loosening of U.S. methadone regulations during the COVID-19 pandemic expanded calls for methadone reform. This study examines professional perceptions of methadone take-home dose regulation before and during the COVID-19 pandemic to understand responses to varied methadone distribution policies., Methods: Fifty-nine substance use disorder treatment professionals were interviewed between 2017 and 2020 in-person or over video call. An inductive iterative coding process was used to analyze the data. Constructivist grounded theory guided the collection and analysis of in-depth interviews., Results: Treatment professionals expressed mixed views toward methadone take-home regulations. Participants justified regulation using several arguments: 1) patient care benefitting from supervision, 2) attributing improved patient safety to take-home regulation, 3) fearing liability for methadone-related harms, and 4) relying on buprenorphine as an "escape hatch" for patients who cannot manage MMT policies. Other professionals suggested partial deregulation, while others strongly opposed pre-pandemic take-home regulation, explaining such regulations impede medication access and hinder patient-centered care. Some professionals supported the COVID-19 policy changes and saw these as a test run for broader deregulation, while others framed the changes as temporary and cautiously applied deregulation to their services, at times revoking looser rules for patients they perceived as nonadherent., Conclusion: Treatment professionals working in a range of modalities, including opioid treatment programs, expressed hesitation toward expanded take-home methadone access. While some participants also supported forms of deregulation, post-pandemic efforts to extend looser methadone distribution policies will have to address apprehensive professionals if such policy changes are to be meaningfully adopted in community services., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Abstract: Many primary care clinics are resistant to accept new patients taking prescription opioids for chronic pain. It is unclear how much of this practice is specific to individuals who may be perceived to have aberrant opioid use. This study sought to determine whether clinics are more or less willing to accept and prescribe opioids to patients depending on whether their history is more or less suggestive of aberrant opioid use by conducting an audit survey of primary care clinics in 9 states from May to July 2019. Simulated patients taking opioids for chronic pain called each clinic twice, giving one of 2 scenarios for needing a new provider: their previous physician had either (1) retired or (2) stopped prescribing opioids for unspecified reasons. Clinic willingness to continue prescribing opioids and accept the patient for general primary care were assessed. Of 452 clinics responding to both scenarios (904 calls), 193 (43%) said their providers would not prescribe opioids in either scenario, 146 (32%) said their providers might prescribe in both, and 113 (25%) responded differently to each scenario. Clinics responding differently had greater odds (odds ratio = 1.83 confidence interval [1.23-2.76]) of willingness to prescribe when the previous doctor retired than when the doctor had stopped prescribing. These findings suggest that primary care access is limited for patients taking opioids for chronic pain, and differentially further reduced for patients whose histories are suggestive of aberrant use. This denial of care could lead to unintended harms such as worsened pain or conversion to illicit substances., (Copyright © 2020 International Association for the Study of Pain.)

Background: Efforts to address opioid-involved overdose fatalities have led to widespread implementation of various initiatives to taper (i.e., reduce or discontinue) opioid prescriptions despite a limited understanding of patients' experience., Methods: From 2019-2020, we recruited patients with chronic, non-cancer pain who had undergone a reduction in opioid daily dosage of ≥50 % in the past two years at Boston Medical Center or Michigan Medicine. Participants completed semi-structured interviews exploring health history, opioid use, and taper experiences. Inductive analysis, guided by theoretical conceptualizations of structural stigma, identified emergent themes., Results: Among 41 participants, three elements of structural stigma were identified across participants' lives. First, participants identified themselves as overlooked subjects of the U.S. opioid crisis, who experienced overprescribing, subsequent stigmatization and surveillance of opioid use (e.g., toxicology screening, "pill counts"), and various tapering initiatives. Second, during the course of pain treatment, participants felt stigmatized and invalidated by cultural norms linking chronic pain to stereotypes of acting disingenuously (e.g., "drug-seeking"). Finally, during and after tapers, institutional policies and programs further increased participants' feelings of marginalization, producing multiple unintended consequences, including reduced access to medical care and feeling "orphaned by the system.", Conclusions: Opioid tapers may exacerbate the social production and burden of stigma among patients with chronic pain, especially when processes are perceived to invalidate pain, endorse stereotypes, and label previously effective, acceptable treatment as inappropriate. Findings highlight how various tapering initiatives reinforce the devalued status of people living with chronic pain while also reducing patients' wellbeing and confidence in medical systems., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Policy evaluations and health system interventions often utilize International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes of opioid use, dependence, and abuse to identify individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) and assess receipt of evidence-based treatments. However, ICD codes may not map directly onto the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder (DSM-5) OUD criteria. This study investigates the positive predictive value of ICD codes in identifying patients with OUD., Methods: We conducted a clinical chart review on a national sample of 520 Veterans assigned ICD-9 or ICD-10 codes for opioid use, dependence, or abuse from 2012 to 2017. We extracted evidence of DSM-5 OUD criteria and opioid misuse from clinical documentation in the month preceding and three months following initial ICD code listing, and categorized patients into: 1) high likelihood of OUD, 2) limited aberrant opioid use, 3) prescribed opioid use without evidence of aberrant use, and 4) insufficient information. Positive predictive value was calculated as the percentage of individuals with these ICD codes meeting high likelihood of OUD criteria upon chart review., Results: Only 57.7 % of patients were categorized as high likelihood of OUD; 16.5 % were categorized as limited aberrant opioid use, 18.9 % prescribed opioid use without evidence of aberrant use, and 6.9 % insufficient information., Conclusions: Patients assigned ICD codes for opioid use, dependence, or abuse often lack documentation of meeting OUD criteria. Many receive long-term opioid therapy for chronic pain without evidence of misuse. Robust methods of identifying individuals with OUD are crucial to improving access to clinically appropriate treatment., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Objective: To describe if patients with chronic opioid use with a consistent usual prescriber (UP) prior to surgery and if early return to that UP (<30 d) would be associated with fewer high risk prescribing events in the postoperative period., Summary Background Data: Over 10 million people each year are prescribed opioids for chronic pain. There is little evidence regarding coordination of opioid management and best practices for patients on long-term opioid therapy patients following surgery., Methods: The study design is a retrospective cohort study. We identified 5749 commercially insured patients aged 18 to 64 with chronic opioid use who underwent elective surgery between January 2008 and March 2015. The predictors were presence of a UP and early return (<30 d from surgery) to a UP. The primary outcome was new high-risk opioid prescribing in the 90-day postoperative period (multiple prescribers, overlapping opioid and/or benzodiazepine prescriptions, new long acting opioid prescriptions, or new dose escalations to > 100 mg OME)., Results: In this cohort, 73.8% of patients were exposed to high risk prescribing postoperatively. Overall, 10% of patients did not have a UP preoperatively, and were more likely to have prescriptions from multiple prescribers (OR 2.23 95% CI 1.75-2.83) and new long acting opioid prescriptions (OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.05-2.71). Among patients with a UP, earlier return was associated with decreased odds of receiving prescriptions from multiple prescribers (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.68-0.95)., Conclusion: Patients without a UP prior to surgery are more likely to be exposed to high-risk opioid prescribing following surgery. Among patients who have a UP, early return visits may enhance care coordination with fewer prescribers.

Objective: We characterized patterns of preoperative opioid use in patients undergoing elective surgery to identify the relationship between preoperative use and subsequent opioid fill after surgery., Background: Preoperative opioid use is common, and varies by dose, recency, duration, and continuity of fills. To date, there is little evidence to guide postoperative prescribing need based on prior opioid use., Methods: We analyzed claims data from Clinformatics DataMart Database for patients aged 18 to 64 years undergoing major and minor surgery between 2008 and 2015. Preoperative use was defined as any opioid prescription filled in the year before surgery. We used cluster analysis to group patients by the dose, recency, duration, and continuity of use. Our primary outcome was second postoperative fill within 30 postoperative days. Our primary explanatory variable was opioid use group. We used logistic regression to examine likelihood of second fill by opioid use group., Results: Out of 267,252 patients, 102,748 (38%) filled an opioid prescription in the 12 months before surgery. Cluster analysis yielded 6 groups of preoperative opioid use, ranging from minimal (27.6%) to intermittent (7.7%) to chronic use (2.7%). Preoperative opioid use was the most influential predictor of second fill, with larger effect sizes than other factors even for patients with minimal or intermittent opioid use. Increasing preoperative use was associated with risk-adjusted likelihood of requiring a second opioid fill compared with naive patients [minimal use: odds ratio (OR) 1.49, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.45-1.53; recent intermittent use: OR 6.51, 95% CI 6.16-6.88; high chronic use: OR 60.79, 95% CI 27.81-132.92, all P values <0.001)., Conclusion: Preoperative opioid use is common among patients who undergo elective surgery. Although the majority of patients infrequently fill opioids before surgery, even minimal use increases the probability of needing additional postoperative prescriptions in the 30 days after surgery when compared with opioid-naive patients. Going forward, identifying preoperative opioid use can inform surgeon prescribing and care coordination for pain management after surgery.

Purpose: Clinical pharmacists in primary care clinics can potentially help manage chronic pain and opioid prescriptions by providing services similar to those provided within their scope of practice to patients with diabetes and hypertension. We evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of a pharmacist-physician collaborative care model for patients with chronic pain., Methods: The program consisted of an in-person pharmacist consultation and optional follow-up visits over 4 months in 2 primary care practices. Eligible patients had chronic pain and a long-term prescription for opioids or buprenorphine or were referred by their primary care physician (PCP). Pharmacist recommendations were communicated to PCPs via the electronic medical record (EMR) and direct communication. Mixed-methods evaluation included baseline and follow-up surveys with patients, EMR review of opioid-related clinical encounters, and provider interviews., Results: Between January and October 2018, 47 of the 182 eligible patients enrolled, with 46 completing all follow-up; 43 patients (91%) had received opioids over the past 6 months. The pharmacist recommended adding or switching to a nonopioid pain medication for 30 patients, switching to buprenorphine for pain and complex persistent opioid dependence for 20 patients, and tapering opioids for 3 patients. All physicians found the intervention acceptable but wanted more guidance on prescribing buprenorphine for pain. Most patients found the intervention helpful, but some reported a lack of physician follow-up on recommended changes., Conclusion: The study demonstrated that comanagement of patients with chronic pain is feasible and acceptable. Policy changes to increase pharmacists' authority to prescribe may increase physician willingness and confidence to carry out opioid tapers and prescribe buprenorphine for pain., (© American Society of Health-System Pharmacists 2020. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Any opioid-related hospitalization is an indicator of opioid-related harm and should ideally trigger carefully monitored decreases in opioid prescribing after inpatient stays in many, if not most, cases. However, past studies on opioid prescribing after hospitalizations have largely been limited to overdose related visits. It is unclear whether prescribing is different for other opioid-related indications such as opioid dependence and abuse and how that may compare with hospitalizations for overdose., Objective: To examine opioid-prescribing patterns before and after opioid-related hospitalizations for all opioid-related indications, not limited to overdose., Research Design: Retrospective cohort analysis of Veterans Health Administration (VHA) administrative claims from 2011 to 2014., Subjects: VHA patients who were hospitalized between fiscal years 2011 and 2014 and had at least 1 prescription opioid medication filled through the VHA pharmacy before their hospitalization., Measures: Opioid dispensing trajectories after hospitalization by opioid-related indication (ie, opioid dependence and/or abuse vs. overdose) compared with prescribing patterns for non-opioid-related hospitalizations., Results: Overall, opioid dosage dropped significantly (66% for dependence/abuse, 42% for overdose, and 3% for nonopioid diagnoses; P<0.001) across all 3 categories when comparing dose 57-63 days after admission to 57-63 days before hospitalization. However, 47% of the patients remained on the same dose or increased their opioid dose at 60 days after an opioid-related hospitalization. After adjusting for covariates, patients with a primary diagnosis of dependence/abuse had higher odds of having their dose discontinued compared with those with overdose: odds ratio (OR) 2.17 (1.19-3.96). Patients with admissions for opioid dependence and/or abuse had a statistically significant higher prevalence of depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and substance use disorders compared with those with an opioid overdose hospitalization., Conclusions: Opioid prescribing and patient risk factors before and after opioid-related hospitalizations vary by indication for hospitalization. To reduce costs and morbidity associated with opioid-related hospitalizations, opioid deintensification efforts need to be tailored to indication for hospitalization.

Background: Opioid dependence, misuse, and abuse in the United States continue to rise. Prior studies indicate an important risk factor for persistent opioid use includes elective surgical procedures, though the probability following thoracic procedures remains unknown. We analyzed the incidence and factors associated with new persistent opioid use after lung resection., Methods: We evaluated data from opioid-naïve cancer patients undergoing lung resection between 2010 and 2014 using insurance claims from the Truven Health MarketScan Databases. New persistent opioid usage was defined as continued opioid prescription fills between 90 and 180 days following surgery. Variables with a p value less than 0.10 by univariate analysis were included in a multivariable logistic regression performed for risk adjustment. Multivariable results were each reported with odds ratio (OR) and confidence interval (CI)., Results: A total of 3,026 patients (44.8% men, 55.2% women) were identified as opioid-naïve undergoing lung resection. Mean age was 64 ± 11 years and mean postoperative length of stay was 5.2 ± 3.3 days. A total of 6.5% underwent neoadjuvant therapy, while 21.7% underwent adjuvant therapy. Among opioid-naïve patients, 14% continued to fill opioid prescriptions following lung resection. Multivariable analysis showed that age less than or equal to 64 years (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.59; p = 0.028), male sex (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.73; p = 0.002), postoperative length of stay (OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.65; p = 0.016), thoracotomy (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.24 to 2.02; p < 0.001), and adjuvant therapy (OR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.75 to 2.75; p < 0.001) were independent risk factors for persistent opioid usage., Conclusions: The greatest risk factors for persistent opioid use (14%) following lung resection were adjuvant therapy and thoracotomy. Future studies should focus on reducing excess prescribing, perioperative patient education, and safe opioid disposal., (Copyright © 2019 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: New persistent opioid use is a common postoperative complication, with 6% of previously opioid-naïve patients continuing to fill opioid prescriptions 3-6 months after surgery. Despite these risks, it is unknown which specialties prescribe opioids to these vulnerable patients., Objective: To identify specialties prescribing opioids to surgical patients who develop new persistent opioid use., Design, Setting, and Participants: Using a national dataset of insurance claims, we identified opioid-naïve patients aged 18-64 years undergoing surgical procedures (2008-2014) who continued filling opioid prescriptions 3 to 6 months after surgery. We then examined opioid prescriptions claims during the 12 months after surgery, and identified prescribing physician specialty using National Provider Identifier codes., Main Measures: Percentage of opioid prescriptions provided by each specialty evaluated at 90-day intervals during the 12 months after surgery., Key Results: We identified 5276 opioid-naïve patients who developed new persistent opioid use. During the first 3 months after surgery, surgeons accounted for 69% of opioid prescriptions, primary care physicians accounted for 13%, Emergency Medicine accounted for 2%, Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation (PM&R)/Pain Medicine accounted for 1%, and all other specialties accounted for 15%. In contrast, 9 to 12 months after surgery, surgeons accounted for only 11% of opioid prescriptions, primary care physicians accounted for 53%, Emergency Medicine accounted for 5%, PM&R/Pain Medicine accounted for 6%, and all other specialties provided 25%., Conclusions: Among surgical patients who developed new persistent opioid use, surgeons provide the majority of opioid prescriptions during the first 3 months after surgery. By 9 to 12 months after surgery, however, the majority of opioid prescriptions were provided by primary care physicians. Enhanced care coordination between surgeons and primary care physicians could allow earlier identification of patients at risk for new persistent opioid use to prevent misuse and dependence.

At least 2.3 million people in the U.S. have an opioid use disorder, less than 40% of whom receive evidence-based treatment. Buprenorphine used as part of medication-assisted treatment has high potential to address this gap because of its approval for use in non-specialty outpatient settings, effectiveness at promoting abstinence, and cost effectiveness. However, less than 4% of licensed physicians are approved to prescribe buprenorphine for opioid use disorder, and approximately 47% of counties lack a buprenorphine-waivered physician. Existing policies contribute to workforce barriers to buprenorphine provision and access. Providers are reticent to prescribe buprenorphine because of workforce barriers, such as (1) insufficient training and education on opioid use disorder treatment, (2) lack of institutional and clinician peer support, (3) poor care coordination, (4) provider stigma, (5) inadequate reimbursement from private and public insurers, and (6) regulatory hurdles to obtain the waiver needed to prescribe buprenorphine in non-addiction specialty treatment settings. Policy pathways to addressing these provider workforce barriers going forward include providing free and easy-to-access education for providers about opioid use disorders and medication-assisted treatment, eliminating buprenorphine waiver requirements for those licensed to prescribe controlled substances, enforcing insurance parity requirements, requiring coverage of evidence-based medication-assisted treatment as essential health benefits, and providing financial incentives for care coordination across healthcare professional types-including behavioral health counselors and other non-physicians in specialty and non-specialty settings., Supplement Information: This article is part of a supplement entitled The Behavioral Health Workforce: Planning, Practice, and Preparation, which is sponsored by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and the Health Resources and Services Administration of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services., (Copyright © 2018 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Primary care-based models for Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT) have been shown to reduce mortality for Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) and have equivalent efficacy to MAT in specialty substance treatment facilities., Objective: The objective of this study is to systematically analyze current evidence-based, primary care OUD MAT interventions and identify program structures and processes associated with improved patient outcomes in order to guide future policy and implementation in primary care settings., Data Sources: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsychInfo., Methods: We included randomized controlled or quasi experimental trials and observational studies evaluating OUD treatment in primary care settings treating adult patient populations and assessed structural domains using an established systems engineering framework., Results: We included 35 interventions (10 RCTs and 25 quasi-experimental interventions) that all tested MAT, buprenorphine or methadone, in primary care settings across 8 countries. Most included interventions used joint multi-disciplinary (specialty addiction services combined with primary care) and coordinated care by physician and non-physician provider delivery models to provide MAT. Despite large variability in reported patient outcomes, processes, and tasks/tools used, similar key design factors arose among successful programs including integrated clinical teams with support staff who were often advanced practice clinicians (nurses and pharmacists) as clinical care managers, incorporating patient "agreements," and using home inductions to make treatment more convenient for patients and providers., Conclusions: The findings suggest that multidisciplinary and coordinated care delivery models are an effective strategy to implement OUD treatment and increase MAT access in primary care, but research directly comparing specific structures and processes of care models is still needed.

To treat a patient with addiction, a physician must overcome feelings of frustration and betrayal., (Project HOPE—The People-to-People Health Foundation, Inc.)

BackgroundEfforts to address opioid-involved overdose fatalities have led to widespread implementation of various initiatives to taper (i.e., reduce or discontinue) opioid prescriptions despite a limited understanding of patients' experience.MethodsFrom 2019-2020, we recruited patients with chronic, non-cancer pain who had undergone a reduction in opioid daily dosage of ≥50 % in the past two years at Boston Medical Center or Michigan Medicine. Participants completed semi-structured interviews exploring health history, opioid use, and taper experiences. Inductive analysis, guided by theoretical conceptualizations of structural stigma, identified emergent themes.ResultsAmong 41 participants, three elements of structural stigma were identified across participants' lives. First, participants identified themselves as overlooked subjects of the U.S. opioid crisis, who experienced overprescribing, subsequent stigmatization and surveillance of opioid use (e.g., toxicology screening, "pill counts"), and various tapering initiatives. Second, during the course of pain treatment, participants felt stigmatized and invalidated by cultural norms linking chronic pain to stereotypes of acting disingenuously (e.g., "drug-seeking"). Finally, during and after tapers, institutional policies and programs further increased participants' feelings of marginalization, producing multiple unintended consequences, including reduced access to medical care and feeling "orphaned by the system."ConclusionsOpioid tapers may exacerbate the social production and burden of stigma among patients with chronic pain, especially when processes are perceived to invalidate pain, endorse stereotypes, and label previously effective, acceptable treatment as inappropriate. Findings highlight how various tapering initiatives reinforce the devalued status of people living with chronic pain while also reducing patients' wellbeing and confidence in medical systems.