Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text.Total hospital opioid distribution decreased by 46.6% from 2012 to 2019, and over half (25 of 50 states) of the United States saw a 50% opioid weight distribution decrease in that time.

There have been increasing concerns about adverse effects and drug interactions with meperidine. The goal of this study was to characterize meperidine use in the United States. Meperidine distribution data were obtained from the Drug Enforcement Administration's Automated of Reports and Consolidated Orders System. The Medicare Part D Prescriber Public Use File was utilized to capture overall trends in national prescriptions in this observational report. Nationally, meperidine distribution decreased by 94.6% from 2001 to 2019. In 2019, Arkansas, Alabama, Oklahoma, and Mississippi saw significantly greater distribution when compared with the US state average of 9.27 mg per 10 persons (SD = 6.82). Meperidine distribution showed an 18‐fold difference between the highest state (Arkansas = 36.8 mg) and lowest state (Minnesota = 2.1 mg). Five of the six states with the lowest distribution were in the Northeast. Meperidine distribution per state was correlated with the prevalence of adult obesity ( r (48) = +0.48, p < .001). Family medicine and internal medicine physicians accounted for 28.9% and 20.5%, respectively, of meperidine total daily supply (TDS) in 2017. Interventional pain management (5.66) and pain management (3.48) physicians accounted for the longest TDS per provider. The use of meperidine declined over the last two decades. Meperidine varied by geographic region with south‐central states, and those with more obesity, showing greater distribution. Primary care doctors continue to account for the majority of meperidine daily supply. Increasing knowledge of meperidine's undesirable adverse effects like seizures and serious drug–drug interactions is likely responsible for these pronounced reductions.

Study Objective: The US is experiencing an epidemic of opioid overdoses which may be at least partially due to an over-reliance on opioid analgesics in the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain and subsequent escalation to heroin or illicit fentanyl. As Texas was reported to be among the lowest in the US for opioid use and misuse, further examination of this state is warranted. Study Design: This study was conducted to quantify prescription opioid use in Texas. Data Source: Data was obtained from the publically available US Drug Enforcement Administration Automation of Reports and Consolidated Orders System (ARCOS) which monitors controlled substances transactions from manufacture to commercial distribution. Results: Data for 2006 to 2017 from Texas for ten prescription opioids including eight primarily used to relieve pain (codeine, fentanyl, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, meperidine, morphine, oxycodone, oxymorphone) and two (buprenorphine and methadone) for the treatment of an Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) were examined. The change in Morphine Mg Equivalent (MME) of all opioids (+23.3%) was only slightly greater than the states population gains (21.1%). Opioids used to treat an OUD showed pronounced gains (+90.8%) which were four-fold faster than population growth. Analysis of individual agents revealed pronounced elevations in codeine (+387.5%), hydromorphone (+106.7%), and oxycodone (+43.6%) and a reduction in meperidine (-80.3%) in 2017 relative to 2006. Methadone in 2017 accounted for a greater portion (39.5%) of the total MME than hydrocodone, oxycodone, morphine, hydromorphone, oxymorphone, and meperidine, combined. There were differences between urban and rural areas in the changes in hydrocodone and buprenorphine. Conclusions: Collectively, these findings indicate that continued vigilance is needed in Texas to appropriately treat pain and an OUD while minimizing the potential for prescription opioid diversion and misuse. Texas may lead the US in a return to pre opioid crisis prescription levels.

Purpose: There have been increasing concerns about adverse effects and drug interactions with meperidine including removal from the World Health Organizations list of essential medications. The goal of this study was to characterize pharmacoepidemiological patterns in meperidine use in the United States. Methods: Meperidine distribution data was obtained from the Drug Enforcement Administrations Automation of Reports and Consolidated Orders System (ARCOS). Medicare Part D Prescriber Public Use Files (PUF) were utilized to capture overall trends in national meperidine prescriptions. Results: National meperidine distribution decreased from 2001 to 2019 by 94.6%. In 2019 Arkansas, Alabama, Oklahoma, and Mississippi saw significantly greater distribution per person when compared to the average state (9.27, SD = 6.82). Meperidine per ten persons showed an eighteen-fold difference between the highest (Arkansas = 36.8 mg) and lowest (Minnesota = 2.1 mg) states. Five of the six lowest states were in the northeast. Meperidine distribution per state was significantly correlated with the prevalence of adult obesity (r(47) = +0.47, p < 0.001). Family medicine and internal medicine physicians accounted for 28.9% and 20.5% of Medicare Part D total daily supply (TDS) of meperidine in 2017. However, interventional pain management (5.66) and pain management (3.48) physicians accounted for the longest while family medicine (0.69) and internal medicine (0.40) accounted for the shortest TDS per provider. Conclusion: Use of meperidine has been declining over the last two-decades. Meperidine distribution varied on a geographical level with south/south-central, and more obese, states showing appreciably greater distribution per person. Primary care doctors continue to account for the majority of meperidine daily supply, but specialists like interventional pain management were the most likely to prescribe meperidine to Medicare patients. Increasing knowledge of meperidines undesirable adverse effects (e.g. seizures) and serious drug-drug interactions likely are responsible for these pronounced reductions.

No abstract

Objective: Stimulant medications are used to treat attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults. However, stimulants are among the most frequently prescribed medications that have a potential to be used nonmedically. We sought to define types of errors associated with treatment of ADHD in adults and to describe a classification rubric for stimulant-related prescribing faults.Methods: An expert panel conducted a scoping review of the literature and rubric development. The literature search including relevant English language publications indexed in Medline (1990-present, human) and Embase (1990-present, human). In addition, we reviewed relevant documentation such as medication labels and guides containing information related to medications used for the treatment of adult ADHD. The initial version draft rubric was developed by adapting an existing framework for prescribing errors. The expert panel further defined a classification rubric and developed error subcategories, classifications, and descriptions.Results: Two error categories were identified. Category 1 errors are errors resulting from prescribing faults, which further included errors in decision making/judgment; errors related to monitoring for potential harm of stimulants; possible errors: events that should generally be avoided or be used with caution; and suboptimal prescribing. Category 2 errors result from prescription writing, further defined as failure to communicate essential information and transcription errors. Conclusions:This study provides a comprehensive description of medication errors associated with stimulant and related medications. Our findings have the potential to assist decision making and to tailor delivery programs, recommendations, guidelines, and clinical decision support health information technology on stimulant prescribing and monitoring.

Background: Once a widely used analgesic in the United States (US), meperidine offered an alternative opioid to other opioids as a pain reliever and was widely assumed to be safer with acute pancreatitis. However, within the last two decades meperidine, has gone from a frequently used drug to being used only when patients exhibit atypical reactions to opioids (e.g., morphine and hydromorphone), to being taken off the World Health Organization List of Essential Medications and receiving strong recommendations for overall avoidance. The aim of this study was to identify changes in meperidine distribution in the US, and regional disparities as reported to the Drug Enforcement Administration’s Automation of Reports and Consolidated Orders System (DEA ARCOS) and Medicaid. Methods: Data related to meperidine distribution was obtained through ARCOS (2001–2021) and Medicaid public use files (2016–2021). Heat maps were used to visualize regional disparities in distribution by state. States outside a 95% confidence interval were statistically significant. Results: Meperidine distribution between 2001 and 2021 decreased by 97.4% (R = −0.97, p < 0.0001). There was a 34-fold state-level difference in meperidine distribution between Arkansas (16.8 mg/10 persons) and Connecticut (0.5 mg/10 persons) in 2020. Meperidine distribution in 2020 was elevated in Arkansas, Mississippi, and Alabama. In 2021, meperidine distribution was highest in Arkansas (16.7 mg/10 persons) and lowest in Connecticut (0.8 mg/10 persons). Total prescriptions of meperidine as reported by Medicaid decreased by 73.8% (R = −0.67, p = 0.045) between 2016 and 2021. Conclusion: We observed a decrease in the overall distribution of meperidine in the past two decades, with a similar recent decline in prescribing it to Medicaid enrollees. The shortage of some parenteral formulations is an important contributor to these declines, however, the most likely explanation for this global decline in use is related to an increased recognition of safety concerns related to important drug interactions and a neurotoxic metabolite. This data may reflect plans to phase out the use of this opioid, especially in the many situations where safer and more preferred opioids are available.

Background: Once a widely used analgesic in the United States (US), meperidine offered an alternative to other opioids as a pain reliever. However, within the last two decades, meperidine has gone from a drug to be utilized only when patients exhibit atypical reactions to opioids (e.g., morphine and hydromorphone) to being taken off the World Health Organization List of Essential Medications and receiving strong recommendations for the overall avoidance. The aim of this study was to identify changes in meperidine distribution in the US and regional disparities as reported to the Drug Enforcement Administration&rsquo;s Automation of Reports and Consolidated Orders System (DEA ARCOS) and Medicaid. Methods: Data related to the meperidine distribution was obtained through ARCOS (2001 &ndash;2021) and Medicaid public use files (2016 &ndash;2021). Heat maps were used to visualize regional disparities in distribution by state. States outside a 95% confidence interval were statistically significant. Results: Meperidine distribution between 2001 and 2021 decreased by 97.4% (R=.-97, P &amp;lt; .0001). There was a 34-fold state-level difference in meperidine distribution between Arkansas (16.8 mg/10 persons) and Connecticut (0.5 mg/ 10 persons) in 2020. Meperidine distribution in 2020 was elevated in Arkansas, Mississippi, and Alabama. In 2021, Meperidine distribution was highest in Arkansas ( 1.67 /10 persons) and lowest in Connecticut (0.08 /10 persons). Total prescriptions of meperidine as reported by Medicaid decreased by 73.8% (R= -0.67, P = 0.045) between 2016 and 2021. Conclusion: We observed a decrease in the overall distribution of meperidine in the past two decades with similar recent declines in prescribing to Medicaid enrollees. The shortage of some parenteral formulations is an important contributor to these declines. This data may reflect plans to phase out the use of this opioid, especially in the many situations where preferred opioids are available.