BACKGROUND: Long-term efficacy of opioids for noncancer pain is unproven, but risks argue for cautious prescribing. Few data suggest how long or how much opioid can be prescribed for opioid-naïve patients without inadvertently promoting long-term use. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between initial opioid prescribing patterns and likelihood of long-term use among opioid-naïve patients. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study; data from Oregon resident prescriptions linked to death certificates and hospital discharges. PARTICIPANTS: Patients filling opioid prescriptions between October 1, 2012, and September 30, 2013, with no opioid fills for the previous 365 days. Subgroup analyses examined patients under age 45 who did not die in the follow-up year, excluding most cancer or palliative care patients. MAIN MEASURES: Exposure: Numbers of prescription fills and cumulative morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) dispensed during 30 days following opioid initiation (Binitiation month^). Outcome: Proportion of patients with six or more opioid fills during the subsequent year (Blong-term users^). KEY RESULTS: There were 536,767 opioid-naïve patients who filled an opioid prescription. Of these, 26,785 (5.0 %) became long-term users. Numbers of fills and cumulative MMEs during the initiation month were associated with long-term use. Among patients under age 45 using short-acting opioids who did not die in the follow-up year, the adjusted odds ratio (OR) for long-term use among those receiving two fills versus one was 2.25 (95 % CI: 2.17, 2.33). Compared to those who received < 120 total MMEs, those who received between 400 and 799 had an OR of 2.96 (95 % CI: 2.81, 3.11). Patients initiating with long-acting opioids had a higher risk of long-term use than those initiating with short-acting drugs.CONCLUSIONS: Early opioid prescribing patterns are associated with long-term use. While patient characteristics are important, clinicians have greater control over initial prescribing. Our findings may help minimize the risk of inadvertently initiating long-term opioid use.

Lumbar fusion surgery is usually prompted by chronic back pain, and many patients receive long-term preoperative opioid analgesics. Many expect surgery to eliminate the need for opioids. We sought to determine what fraction of long-term preoperative opioid users discontinue or reduce dosage postoperatively; what fraction of patients with little preoperative use initiate long-term use; and what predicts long-term postoperative use. This retrospective cohort study included 2491 adults undergoing lumbar fusion surgery for degenerative conditions, using Oregon's prescription drug monitoring program to quantify opioid use before and after hospitalization. We defined long-term postoperative use as ≥4 prescriptions filled in the 7 months after hospitalization, with at least 3 occurring >30 days after hospitalization. Overall, 1045 patients received long-term opioids preoperatively, and 1094 postoperatively. Among long-term preoperative users, 77.1% continued long-term postoperative use, and 13.8% had episodic use. Only 9.1% discontinued or had short-term postoperative use. Among preoperative users, 34.4% received a lower dose postoperatively, but 44.8% received a higher long-term dose. Among patients with no preoperative opioids, 12.8% became long-term users. In multivariable models, the strongest predictor of long-term postoperative use was cumulative preoperative opioid dose (odds ratio of 15.47 [95% confidence interval 8.53-28.06] in the highest quartile). Cumulative dose and number of opioid prescribers in the 30-day postoperative period were also associated with long-term use. Thus, lumbar fusion surgery infrequently eliminated long-term opioid use. Opioid-naive patients had a substantial risk of initiating long-term use. Patients should have realistic expectations regarding opioid use after lumbar fusion surgery.

Feedback from both pharmacists and patient participants suggests that there is uncertainty in the degree to which pharmacists can and should confront the prescription opioid epidemic directly. Ambiguities in the pharmacist's role may be best clarified through structured training promoting enhanced between-party communication.

Objectives Prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMP) are now active in most states to assist clinicians in identifying potential controlled drug misuse, diversion or excessive prescribing. Little is still known about the ways in which they are incorporated into workflow and clinical decision making, what barriers continue to exist, and how clinicians are sharing PDMP results with their patients. Design Qualitative data were collected through online focus groups and telephone interviews Setting Clinicians from pain management, emergency and family medicine, psychiatry/behavioral health, rehabilitation medicine, internal medicine and dentistry. Subjects 35 clinicians from 9 states participated. Methods We conducted two online focus groups and seven telephone interviews. A multidisciplinary team then used a grounded theory approach coupled with an immersion-crystallization strategy for identifying key themes in the resulting transcripts. Results Some participants, mainly from pain clinics, reported checking the PDMP with every patient, every time. Others checked only for new patients, for new opioid prescriptions, or for patients for whom they suspected abuse. Participants described varied approaches to sharing PDMP information with patients, including openly discussing potential addiction or safety concerns; avoiding discussion altogether; and approaching discussion confrontationally. Participants described patient anger or denial as a common response and noted the role of patient satisfaction surveys as an influence on prescribing. Conclusion Routines for accessing PDMP data and how clinicians respond to it vary widely. As PDMP use becomes more widespread, it will be important to understand what approaches are most effective for identifying and addressing unsafe medication use.

Prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMP) are relatively new but potentially useful tools to enhance prudent prescribing of controlled substances. However, little is known about the types of clinicians who make most use of PDMPs, how they are incorporated into workflow, or how clinicians and patients respond to the information. We therefore surveyed a random sample of Oregon providers, with 1065 respondents. Clinicians in emergency medicine, primary care, and pain and addiction specialties were the largest number of registrants but many frequent prescribers of controlled substances were not registered to use the PDMP. Among users, 95% reported accessing the PDMP when they suspected a patient of abuse or diversion, but fewer than half would check it for every new patient or every time they prescribe a controlled drug. Nearly all PDMP users reported that they discuss worrisome PDMP data with patients; 54% reported making mental health or substance abuse referrals, and 36% reported sometimes discharging patients from the practice. Clinicians reported frequent patient denial or anger, and only occasional requests for help with drug dependence. More research is needed to optimize how clinicians use PDMPs across settings, and how clinicians and patients respond to the data.

Greater consistency is needed in use of PDMP in monitoring existing patients and in conformity to guidelines against discharging patients from practice. Research is needed to determine optimal approaches to interpreting PDMP profiles in relation to clinical judgment, patient screeners, and other information.

Factors other than PDMP use may have had greater influence on prescribing trends. Refinements in the PDMP program and related policies may be necessary to increase PDMP effects.

Objectives: The objective of this study was to investigate methamphetamine use among people who use opioids in rural Oregon communities to explore reasons for use and perceptions of methamphetamine consequences. Methods: We conducted interviews and surveys with participants who inject drugs or misuse prescription opioids in 2 rural Oregon counties with high opioid overdose rates. Survey participants were identified through participant-driven sampling initiated in syringe service programs and field outreach (n = 144). Semi-structured interviews with participants were recruited from the same locations (n = 52). Results: Of 144 surveys completed, 112 reported using opioids in the past 30 days; 96% of the 112 also report methamphetamine use. Among the 124 reporting injection drug use, 50% indicated they injected both methamphetamine and heroin in the past 30 days. Interview participants reported early exposure to methamphetamine and indicated that methamphetamine was more widely available, less expensive, and less stigmatized compared to heroin. Participants reported using methamphetamine to improve work-life functioning and because they enjoy the high produced from simultaneous use. Several participants reported a conscious effort to shift to methamphetamine from heroin as a harm reduction strategy. Some participants reported being involuntarily discharged from treatment for opioid use disorder due to methamphetamine use. Several participants perceived methamphetamine as conveying overdose prevention or reversal benefits, while fentanyl contamination in methamphetamine was reported or suspected. Conclusion: As rural communities respond to evolving drug supply and demand, there is increasing need for public health efforts to address the emerging issue of concurrent methamphetamine and opioid use.