Trends in use of opioids for non-cancer pain conditions 2000–2005 in Commercial and Medicaid insurance plans: The TROUP study

Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Division of Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry, University of Washington, Box 356560, 1959 NE Pacific Street, Seattle, WA 98195-6560, USA.
Pain (Impact Factor: 5.84). 07/2008; 138(2):440-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2008.04.027
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Opioids are widely prescribed for non-cancer pain conditions (NCPC), but there have been no large observational studies in actual clinical practice assessing patterns of opioid use over extended periods of time. The TROUP (Trends and Risks of Opioid Use for Pain) study reports on trends in opioid therapy for NCPC in two disparate populations, one national and commercially insured population (HealthCore plan data) and one state-based and publicly-insured (Arkansas Medicaid) population over a six year period (2000-2005). We track enrollees with the four most common NCPC conditions: arthritis/joint pain, back pain, neck pain, headaches, as well as HIV/AIDS. Rates of NCPC diagnosis and opioid use increased linearly during this period in both groups, with the Medicaid group starting at higher rates and the HealthCore group increasing more rapidly. The proportion of enrollees receiving NCPC diagnoses increased (HealthCore 33%, Medicaid 9%), as did the proportion of enrollees with NCPC diagnoses who received opioids (HealthCore 58%, Medicaid 29%). Cumulative yearly opioid dose (in mg. morphine equivalents) received by NCPC patients treated with opioids increased (HealthCore 38%, Medicaid 37%) due to increases in number of days supplied rather than dose per day supplied. Use of short-acting Drug Enforcement Administration Schedule II opioids increased most rapidly, both in proportion of NCPC patients treated (HealthCore 54%, Medicaid 38%) and in cumulative yearly dose (HealthCore 95%, Medicaid 191%). These trends have occurred without any significant change in the underlying population prevalence of NCPC or new evidence of the efficacy of long-term opioid therapy and thus likely represent a broad-based shift in opioid treatment philosophy.

Download full-text


Available from: Jennifer Brennan Braden, Jun 17, 2015
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Opioids and antidepressants are frequently prescribed for chronic low back pain (cLBP). This post hoc analysis was conducted to assess the tolerability of oxymorphone extended release (ER) for cLBP in patients taking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) or serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) compared with patients not taking SSRIs/SNRIs. Patients in 2 clinical trials (NCT00225797, November 22, 2004 to July 18, 2005; NCT00226421, October 13, 2004 to August 19, 2005) aged ≥ 18 years with moderate to severe cLBP were titrated to a stabilized dose of oxymorphone ER during an open-label titration phase and then randomized to treatment with this dose or placebo every 12 hours for 12 weeks. In a post hoc analysis, adverse events (AEs) were compared between patients taking versus not taking SSRIs/SNRIs. Treatment efficacy was assessed as change from baseline in average daily pain intensity on a 100-mm visual analog scale. Of 575 patients enrolled, 45 of 89 (50.6%) taking SSRIs/SNRIs and 303 of 486 (62.3%) not taking SSRIs/SNRIs successfully titrated to oxymorphone ER. The frequency of any AE did not differ significantly between the 2 subpopulations. During the titration phase, serious AEs occurred more frequently in patients taking SSRIs/SNRIs (3/89; 3.4%) compared with those not taking SSRIs/SNRIs (4/486; 0.8%; P = 0.04); however, during the double-blind treatment phase, there was no significant difference in the frequency of serious AEs in patients treated with oxymorphone ER taking (1/29; 3.4%) versus those not taking (3/146; 2.0%) SSRIs/SNRIs. Visual analog scale scores were similar in patients taking versus those not taking SSRIs/SNRIs throughout the study. The concomitant use of oxymorphone ER with SSRIs or SNRIs was well tolerated in patients with cLBP.
    Postgraduate Medicine 03/2012; 124(2):114-22. DOI:10.3810/pgm.2012.03.2542 · 1.54 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To examine the proportion of diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) patients receiving pharmacologic DPN treatments and specifically to identify the rates and factors associated with opioid use and first-line opioid use. A 10% sample of IMS-LifeLink claims data from 1998 through 2008 was used. The study population consisted of diabetic patients who met DPN criteria using a validated DPN algorithm. Multivariable logistic regression controlling for demographics, comorbidities, and other clinical characteristics was used to identify factors associated with any DPN pharmacologic treatment, any opioid use, and first-line opioid treatment. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore variations in exclusion criteria as well as opioid use definitions. A total of 666 DPN patients met inclusion criteria and pharmacologic treatment was received by 288 patients (43.24%) and of those, 154 (53.47%) had DPN-related opioid use and 96 (33.33%) received opioid as first-line treatment. Persons with diabetic complications were more likely to use opioids (odds ratio=4.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-18.92). Food and Drug Administration-approved DPN agents duloxetine 1.04% (n=3) and pregabalin 5.56% (n=16) had much lower rates of use. DPN-related drug use and DPN-related opioid usage increased as we used less restrictive samples in sensitivity analyses. Opioids were the most frequently prescribed first-line agents for DPN. More than 50% of DPN patients remained untreated with pharmacologic agents 1 year after a DPN diagnosis.
    Clinical Journal of Pain 01/2014; 15(4):1. DOI:10.1097/AJP.0000000000000124 · 2.70 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Improved understanding of temporal and regional trends may support safe and effective prescribing of opioids. Objective We describe national, regional, and facility-level trends and variations in opioid receipt between fiscal years (FY) 2004 and 2012. Design Observational cohort study using Veterans Health Administration (VHA) administrative databases. Participants All patients receiving primary care within 137 VHA healthcare systems during a given study year and receiving medications from VHA one year before and during a given study year. Main Measures Prevalent and incident opioid receipt during each year of the study period. Key Results The overall prevalence of opioid receipt increased from 18.9 % of all veteran outpatients in FY2004 to 33.4 % in FY2012, a 76.7 % relative increase. In FY2012, women had higher rates of prevalent opioid receipt than men (42.4 % vs. 32.9 %), and the youngest veterans (18–34 years) had higher prevalent opioid receipt compared to the oldest veterans (≥80 years) (47.6 % vs. 17.9 %). All regions in the United States saw increased rates of prevalent opioid receipt during this time period. Prevalence rates varied widely by facility: in FY2012, the lowest-prescribing facility had a rate of 13.5 %, and the highest of 50.8 %. Annual incident opioid receipt increased from 8.8 % in FY2004 to 10.2 % in FY2011, with a decline to 9.8 % in FY2012. Incident prescribing increased at some facilities and decreased at others. Facilities with high prevalent prescribing tended to have flat or decreasing incident prescribing rates during the study time frame. Conclusions Rates of opioid receipt increased throughout the study time frame, with wide variation in prevalent and incident rates across geographical region, sex, and age groups. Prevalence and incidence rates reflect distinct prescribing practices. Areas with the highest prevalence tended to have lower increases in incident opioid receipt over the study period. This likely reflects facility-level variations in prescribing practices as well as baseline rates of prevalent use. Future work assessing opioid prescribing should employ methodologies to account for and interpret both prevalent and incident opioid receipt.
    Journal of General Internal Medicine 12/2014; DOI:10.1007/s11606-014-3143-z · 3.42 Impact Factor