User login
Medication overuse prevalent among U.S. migraine patients
PHILADELPHIA – according to findings from an analysis of 16,789 people with migraine.
About 18% of the people identified with migraine in the study cohort reported a drug consumption pattern that met the prespecified definition of “medication overuse,” Todd J. Schwedt, MD, and his associates reported in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society. Supplying each migraine patient with a “comprehensive treatment plan” along with “improved acute treatment options ... may help reduce the prevalence and associated burden of medication overuse,” said Dr. Schwedt, a professor of neurology at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix. The analysis also showed that medication overuse (MO) significantly linked with several markers of worse clinical status.
If patients have “an effective preventive treatment that reduces headaches and migraine attacks then they will, in general, use less acute medications. Many people with migraine never even get diagnosed, and patients who qualify for preventive treatment never get it,” Dr. Schwedt noted in an interview. He described a comprehensive treatment plan as a management strategy that includes lifestyle modifications, a migraine-prevention agent, and the availability of an effective acute treatment for a patient to use when a migraine strikes along with clear instructions on how to appropriately self-administer the medication. Only a small fraction of U.S. migraine patients currently receive this complete package of care, he said.
The analysis he ran used data collected in the CaMEO (Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes) study, which used an Internet-based survey to collect data from a representative 58,000-person sample of U.S. residents, which included 16,789 who met the applied migraine definition, with 91% having fewer than 15 headaches/month and the remaining 9% with a monthly headache average of 15 or more (Cephalagia. 2015 Jun;35[7]:563-78).
The researchers defined overuse of a single medication as use 15 times or more a month of an NSAID, aspirin, or acetaminophen, or use at least 10 times a month of a triptan, ergotamine, or opioid. They also had a prespecified definition of multidrug overuse that applied similar monthly thresholds. The patients averaged about 41 years old, three-quarters were women, and 85% were white. Patients identified with MO had a substantially higher rate of headaches per month: an average of nearly 12, compared with an average of about 4 per month among those without overuse. Almost two-thirds of the patients with MO reported having been formally diagnosed as having migraine headaches, compared with 41% of those without overuse.
Among the 13,749 patients (82%) on some headache medication, 67% were on a nonopioid analgesic, including 61% on an NSAID. MO among all people on nonopioid analgesics was 16%, and 12% among those who used NSAIDS. The most overused drug in this subgroup were combination analgesics, overused by 18% of those taking these drugs.
The drug class with the biggest MO rate was opioids, used by 12% of those on any medication and overused by 22% of those taking an opioid. Triptans were taken by 11%, with an MO rate of 11% among these users. Ergotamine was used by less than 1% of all patients, and those taking this drug tallied a 19% MO rate.
“Opioids were the class most often overused, more evidence that opioids should rarely if ever be used to treat migraine,” Dr. Schwedt said.
The analysis also showed that patients who had MO has multiple signs of worse clinical status. Patients with MO had a significantly higher rate of diagnosed depression, 54%, compared with 28% in those without MO; anxiety, 49% compared with 26%; migraine-associated disability, 73% compared with 32%; migraine-associated functional impairment (Migraine Interictal Burden Scale), 65% compared with 32%; and emergency department or urgent care use, 13% compared with 3%. All these between-group differences were statistically significant.
CaMEO was funded by Allergan. Dr. Schwedt has been a consultant to Allergan, and also to Alder, Amgen, Cipla, Dr. Reddy’s, Ipsen, Lilly, Novartis, and Teva. He has stock ownership in Aural Analytics, Nocira, and Second Opinion, and he has received research funding from Amgen.
SOURCE: Schwedt TJ et al. Headache. 2019 June;59[S1]:83-4, Abstract P92.
PHILADELPHIA – according to findings from an analysis of 16,789 people with migraine.
About 18% of the people identified with migraine in the study cohort reported a drug consumption pattern that met the prespecified definition of “medication overuse,” Todd J. Schwedt, MD, and his associates reported in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society. Supplying each migraine patient with a “comprehensive treatment plan” along with “improved acute treatment options ... may help reduce the prevalence and associated burden of medication overuse,” said Dr. Schwedt, a professor of neurology at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix. The analysis also showed that medication overuse (MO) significantly linked with several markers of worse clinical status.
If patients have “an effective preventive treatment that reduces headaches and migraine attacks then they will, in general, use less acute medications. Many people with migraine never even get diagnosed, and patients who qualify for preventive treatment never get it,” Dr. Schwedt noted in an interview. He described a comprehensive treatment plan as a management strategy that includes lifestyle modifications, a migraine-prevention agent, and the availability of an effective acute treatment for a patient to use when a migraine strikes along with clear instructions on how to appropriately self-administer the medication. Only a small fraction of U.S. migraine patients currently receive this complete package of care, he said.
The analysis he ran used data collected in the CaMEO (Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes) study, which used an Internet-based survey to collect data from a representative 58,000-person sample of U.S. residents, which included 16,789 who met the applied migraine definition, with 91% having fewer than 15 headaches/month and the remaining 9% with a monthly headache average of 15 or more (Cephalagia. 2015 Jun;35[7]:563-78).
The researchers defined overuse of a single medication as use 15 times or more a month of an NSAID, aspirin, or acetaminophen, or use at least 10 times a month of a triptan, ergotamine, or opioid. They also had a prespecified definition of multidrug overuse that applied similar monthly thresholds. The patients averaged about 41 years old, three-quarters were women, and 85% were white. Patients identified with MO had a substantially higher rate of headaches per month: an average of nearly 12, compared with an average of about 4 per month among those without overuse. Almost two-thirds of the patients with MO reported having been formally diagnosed as having migraine headaches, compared with 41% of those without overuse.
Among the 13,749 patients (82%) on some headache medication, 67% were on a nonopioid analgesic, including 61% on an NSAID. MO among all people on nonopioid analgesics was 16%, and 12% among those who used NSAIDS. The most overused drug in this subgroup were combination analgesics, overused by 18% of those taking these drugs.
The drug class with the biggest MO rate was opioids, used by 12% of those on any medication and overused by 22% of those taking an opioid. Triptans were taken by 11%, with an MO rate of 11% among these users. Ergotamine was used by less than 1% of all patients, and those taking this drug tallied a 19% MO rate.
“Opioids were the class most often overused, more evidence that opioids should rarely if ever be used to treat migraine,” Dr. Schwedt said.
The analysis also showed that patients who had MO has multiple signs of worse clinical status. Patients with MO had a significantly higher rate of diagnosed depression, 54%, compared with 28% in those without MO; anxiety, 49% compared with 26%; migraine-associated disability, 73% compared with 32%; migraine-associated functional impairment (Migraine Interictal Burden Scale), 65% compared with 32%; and emergency department or urgent care use, 13% compared with 3%. All these between-group differences were statistically significant.
CaMEO was funded by Allergan. Dr. Schwedt has been a consultant to Allergan, and also to Alder, Amgen, Cipla, Dr. Reddy’s, Ipsen, Lilly, Novartis, and Teva. He has stock ownership in Aural Analytics, Nocira, and Second Opinion, and he has received research funding from Amgen.
SOURCE: Schwedt TJ et al. Headache. 2019 June;59[S1]:83-4, Abstract P92.
PHILADELPHIA – according to findings from an analysis of 16,789 people with migraine.
About 18% of the people identified with migraine in the study cohort reported a drug consumption pattern that met the prespecified definition of “medication overuse,” Todd J. Schwedt, MD, and his associates reported in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society. Supplying each migraine patient with a “comprehensive treatment plan” along with “improved acute treatment options ... may help reduce the prevalence and associated burden of medication overuse,” said Dr. Schwedt, a professor of neurology at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix. The analysis also showed that medication overuse (MO) significantly linked with several markers of worse clinical status.
If patients have “an effective preventive treatment that reduces headaches and migraine attacks then they will, in general, use less acute medications. Many people with migraine never even get diagnosed, and patients who qualify for preventive treatment never get it,” Dr. Schwedt noted in an interview. He described a comprehensive treatment plan as a management strategy that includes lifestyle modifications, a migraine-prevention agent, and the availability of an effective acute treatment for a patient to use when a migraine strikes along with clear instructions on how to appropriately self-administer the medication. Only a small fraction of U.S. migraine patients currently receive this complete package of care, he said.
The analysis he ran used data collected in the CaMEO (Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes) study, which used an Internet-based survey to collect data from a representative 58,000-person sample of U.S. residents, which included 16,789 who met the applied migraine definition, with 91% having fewer than 15 headaches/month and the remaining 9% with a monthly headache average of 15 or more (Cephalagia. 2015 Jun;35[7]:563-78).
The researchers defined overuse of a single medication as use 15 times or more a month of an NSAID, aspirin, or acetaminophen, or use at least 10 times a month of a triptan, ergotamine, or opioid. They also had a prespecified definition of multidrug overuse that applied similar monthly thresholds. The patients averaged about 41 years old, three-quarters were women, and 85% were white. Patients identified with MO had a substantially higher rate of headaches per month: an average of nearly 12, compared with an average of about 4 per month among those without overuse. Almost two-thirds of the patients with MO reported having been formally diagnosed as having migraine headaches, compared with 41% of those without overuse.
Among the 13,749 patients (82%) on some headache medication, 67% were on a nonopioid analgesic, including 61% on an NSAID. MO among all people on nonopioid analgesics was 16%, and 12% among those who used NSAIDS. The most overused drug in this subgroup were combination analgesics, overused by 18% of those taking these drugs.
The drug class with the biggest MO rate was opioids, used by 12% of those on any medication and overused by 22% of those taking an opioid. Triptans were taken by 11%, with an MO rate of 11% among these users. Ergotamine was used by less than 1% of all patients, and those taking this drug tallied a 19% MO rate.
“Opioids were the class most often overused, more evidence that opioids should rarely if ever be used to treat migraine,” Dr. Schwedt said.
The analysis also showed that patients who had MO has multiple signs of worse clinical status. Patients with MO had a significantly higher rate of diagnosed depression, 54%, compared with 28% in those without MO; anxiety, 49% compared with 26%; migraine-associated disability, 73% compared with 32%; migraine-associated functional impairment (Migraine Interictal Burden Scale), 65% compared with 32%; and emergency department or urgent care use, 13% compared with 3%. All these between-group differences were statistically significant.
CaMEO was funded by Allergan. Dr. Schwedt has been a consultant to Allergan, and also to Alder, Amgen, Cipla, Dr. Reddy’s, Ipsen, Lilly, Novartis, and Teva. He has stock ownership in Aural Analytics, Nocira, and Second Opinion, and he has received research funding from Amgen.
SOURCE: Schwedt TJ et al. Headache. 2019 June;59[S1]:83-4, Abstract P92.
REPORTING FROM AHS 2019
Gynecologic surgeries linked with persistent opioid use
– showing that persistent opioid use can follow such surgeries.
For a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, Jason D. Wright, MD, of Columbia University, New York, and colleagues looked at insurance claims data from 729,625 opioid-naive women, median age 44 years, who had undergone a myomectomy; a minimally invasive, vaginal, or abdominal hysterectomy; an open or laparoscopic oophorectomy; endometrial ablation; tubal ligation; or dilation and curettage. The vast majority of subjects, 93%, had commercial health insurance, with the rest enrolled in Medicaid. Women undergoing multiple surgical procedures, with serious comorbidities, or who underwent another surgery within 6 months of the initial one, were excluded from the analysis.
Dr. Wright and colleagues found that 60% of patients in the cohort received an initial opioid prescription in the perioperative period. Additional opioids were then prescribed to 6.8% (P less than .001) of those women between 90 and 180 days after surgery. The rate of additional prescriptions varied by year across the study period, from 2009 to 2016, and declined to 6% by the final year of the study. The rate of further opioid prescriptions varied according to procedure: 4.8% for myomectomy, 6.6% for minimally invasive hysterectomy, 6.7% for abdominal hysterectomy, 6.3% for endometrial ablation, 7% for tubal ligation, and 7.2% for dilation and curettage (P less than .001).
Factors significantly increasing likelihood of a new prescription included younger age and a history of depression, anxiety, or a substance abuse disorder. Also, a higher total dose of opioids initially prescribed, and a greater number of days supplied, were associated with increased risk for an additional prescription.
“These data demonstrate that the rate of new persistent opioid use after common gynecologic procedures is substantial,” Dr. Wright and colleagues wrote in their analysis, noting that prior studies across a wide range of surgeries have shown rates of new persistent opioid use to be between 3% and 8%. “Careful risk assessment of patients preoperatively may be useful to mitigate opioid misuse in high risk populations,” the investigators wrote. “Women with underlying psychosocial disorders, medical comorbidities, or a history of substance use disorder are at particular risk for persistent opioid use and should be prescribed opioids with extra caution.”
Dr. Wright and colleagues’ study “provides powerful data that should cause gynecological surgeons to pause when writing an opioid prescription,” David M. Jaspan, DO, chairman of obstetrics and gynecology at Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, said in an interview. “Is an opioid the best first line medication for this patient? Would an NSAID work better? Is multimodal medication an option? What are the patient characteristics that may be associated with persistent use?”
Dr. Wright and colleagues noted among the study’s limitations the fact that actual opioid use could not be measured, nor could use of nonopioid painkillers.
Dr. Wright has served as a consultant for Tesaro and Clovis Oncology. Dr. Alfred I. Neugut disclosed relationships with various pharmaceutical firms. Dr. Dawn L. Hershman received a grant from the Breast Cancer Research Foundation/Conquer Cancer Foundation. The remaining coauthors had no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Wright JD et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2019. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003358.
– showing that persistent opioid use can follow such surgeries.
For a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, Jason D. Wright, MD, of Columbia University, New York, and colleagues looked at insurance claims data from 729,625 opioid-naive women, median age 44 years, who had undergone a myomectomy; a minimally invasive, vaginal, or abdominal hysterectomy; an open or laparoscopic oophorectomy; endometrial ablation; tubal ligation; or dilation and curettage. The vast majority of subjects, 93%, had commercial health insurance, with the rest enrolled in Medicaid. Women undergoing multiple surgical procedures, with serious comorbidities, or who underwent another surgery within 6 months of the initial one, were excluded from the analysis.
Dr. Wright and colleagues found that 60% of patients in the cohort received an initial opioid prescription in the perioperative period. Additional opioids were then prescribed to 6.8% (P less than .001) of those women between 90 and 180 days after surgery. The rate of additional prescriptions varied by year across the study period, from 2009 to 2016, and declined to 6% by the final year of the study. The rate of further opioid prescriptions varied according to procedure: 4.8% for myomectomy, 6.6% for minimally invasive hysterectomy, 6.7% for abdominal hysterectomy, 6.3% for endometrial ablation, 7% for tubal ligation, and 7.2% for dilation and curettage (P less than .001).
Factors significantly increasing likelihood of a new prescription included younger age and a history of depression, anxiety, or a substance abuse disorder. Also, a higher total dose of opioids initially prescribed, and a greater number of days supplied, were associated with increased risk for an additional prescription.
“These data demonstrate that the rate of new persistent opioid use after common gynecologic procedures is substantial,” Dr. Wright and colleagues wrote in their analysis, noting that prior studies across a wide range of surgeries have shown rates of new persistent opioid use to be between 3% and 8%. “Careful risk assessment of patients preoperatively may be useful to mitigate opioid misuse in high risk populations,” the investigators wrote. “Women with underlying psychosocial disorders, medical comorbidities, or a history of substance use disorder are at particular risk for persistent opioid use and should be prescribed opioids with extra caution.”
Dr. Wright and colleagues’ study “provides powerful data that should cause gynecological surgeons to pause when writing an opioid prescription,” David M. Jaspan, DO, chairman of obstetrics and gynecology at Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, said in an interview. “Is an opioid the best first line medication for this patient? Would an NSAID work better? Is multimodal medication an option? What are the patient characteristics that may be associated with persistent use?”
Dr. Wright and colleagues noted among the study’s limitations the fact that actual opioid use could not be measured, nor could use of nonopioid painkillers.
Dr. Wright has served as a consultant for Tesaro and Clovis Oncology. Dr. Alfred I. Neugut disclosed relationships with various pharmaceutical firms. Dr. Dawn L. Hershman received a grant from the Breast Cancer Research Foundation/Conquer Cancer Foundation. The remaining coauthors had no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Wright JD et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2019. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003358.
– showing that persistent opioid use can follow such surgeries.
For a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, Jason D. Wright, MD, of Columbia University, New York, and colleagues looked at insurance claims data from 729,625 opioid-naive women, median age 44 years, who had undergone a myomectomy; a minimally invasive, vaginal, or abdominal hysterectomy; an open or laparoscopic oophorectomy; endometrial ablation; tubal ligation; or dilation and curettage. The vast majority of subjects, 93%, had commercial health insurance, with the rest enrolled in Medicaid. Women undergoing multiple surgical procedures, with serious comorbidities, or who underwent another surgery within 6 months of the initial one, were excluded from the analysis.
Dr. Wright and colleagues found that 60% of patients in the cohort received an initial opioid prescription in the perioperative period. Additional opioids were then prescribed to 6.8% (P less than .001) of those women between 90 and 180 days after surgery. The rate of additional prescriptions varied by year across the study period, from 2009 to 2016, and declined to 6% by the final year of the study. The rate of further opioid prescriptions varied according to procedure: 4.8% for myomectomy, 6.6% for minimally invasive hysterectomy, 6.7% for abdominal hysterectomy, 6.3% for endometrial ablation, 7% for tubal ligation, and 7.2% for dilation and curettage (P less than .001).
Factors significantly increasing likelihood of a new prescription included younger age and a history of depression, anxiety, or a substance abuse disorder. Also, a higher total dose of opioids initially prescribed, and a greater number of days supplied, were associated with increased risk for an additional prescription.
“These data demonstrate that the rate of new persistent opioid use after common gynecologic procedures is substantial,” Dr. Wright and colleagues wrote in their analysis, noting that prior studies across a wide range of surgeries have shown rates of new persistent opioid use to be between 3% and 8%. “Careful risk assessment of patients preoperatively may be useful to mitigate opioid misuse in high risk populations,” the investigators wrote. “Women with underlying psychosocial disorders, medical comorbidities, or a history of substance use disorder are at particular risk for persistent opioid use and should be prescribed opioids with extra caution.”
Dr. Wright and colleagues’ study “provides powerful data that should cause gynecological surgeons to pause when writing an opioid prescription,” David M. Jaspan, DO, chairman of obstetrics and gynecology at Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, said in an interview. “Is an opioid the best first line medication for this patient? Would an NSAID work better? Is multimodal medication an option? What are the patient characteristics that may be associated with persistent use?”
Dr. Wright and colleagues noted among the study’s limitations the fact that actual opioid use could not be measured, nor could use of nonopioid painkillers.
Dr. Wright has served as a consultant for Tesaro and Clovis Oncology. Dr. Alfred I. Neugut disclosed relationships with various pharmaceutical firms. Dr. Dawn L. Hershman received a grant from the Breast Cancer Research Foundation/Conquer Cancer Foundation. The remaining coauthors had no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Wright JD et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2019. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003358.
FROM OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Nearly 20% of migraineurs use opioids for migraine
PHILADELPHIA – People with 4 or more migraine headache days per month are more likely to use opioids, compared with people with fewer migraine headache days per month, researchers said. Opioid use for migraine “remains alarmingly high,” the investigators said at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
Although opioid use for the treatment of migraine typically is discouraged, studies indicate that it is common. Evidence suggests that opioids may increase the risk of progression from episodic to chronic migraine.
To evaluate opioid use in people with migraine, Sait Ashina, MD, of Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, and the research colleagues analyzed data from 21,143 people with migraine who participated in the OVERCOME (Observational Survey of the Epidemiology, Treatment and Care of Migraine), a Web-based study of a representative U.S. sample. OVERCOME enrolled participants in the fall of 2018.
The researchers classified self-reported opioid use for migraine as current use in the past 12 months, former use, or never. Participants had a mean age of 42 years, and 74% were female. The researchers used a multivariable logistic regression model adjusted for age and sex in their analyses.
“Strikingly, we were able to find 19% of people with migraine were reporting current use of opioids,” Dr. Ashina said.
Among 12,299 patients with 0-3 migraine headache days per month, 59% were never, 26% former, and 15% current users of opioids for migraine. Among 8,844 patients with 4 or more migraine headache days per month, 44.9% were never, 31.2% former, and 23.9% current users of opioids for migraine.
There was an increased likelihood of opioid use for migraine in people with pain comorbidities such as back pain, neck pain, and fibromyalgia and in people with anxiety and depression.
Approximately 30%-40% of those who used opioids for migraine were using strong opioids, as defined by the World Health Organization, Dr. Ashina noted. Preliminary analyses indicate that patients tended to receive opioids in a primary care setting, he said.
Eli Lilly funded the OVERCOME study. Dr. Ashina has consulted for Novartis, Amgen, Promius, Supernus, Satsuma, and Allergan. He is on the Editorial Advisory Board for Neurology Reviews.
PHILADELPHIA – People with 4 or more migraine headache days per month are more likely to use opioids, compared with people with fewer migraine headache days per month, researchers said. Opioid use for migraine “remains alarmingly high,” the investigators said at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
Although opioid use for the treatment of migraine typically is discouraged, studies indicate that it is common. Evidence suggests that opioids may increase the risk of progression from episodic to chronic migraine.
To evaluate opioid use in people with migraine, Sait Ashina, MD, of Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, and the research colleagues analyzed data from 21,143 people with migraine who participated in the OVERCOME (Observational Survey of the Epidemiology, Treatment and Care of Migraine), a Web-based study of a representative U.S. sample. OVERCOME enrolled participants in the fall of 2018.
The researchers classified self-reported opioid use for migraine as current use in the past 12 months, former use, or never. Participants had a mean age of 42 years, and 74% were female. The researchers used a multivariable logistic regression model adjusted for age and sex in their analyses.
“Strikingly, we were able to find 19% of people with migraine were reporting current use of opioids,” Dr. Ashina said.
Among 12,299 patients with 0-3 migraine headache days per month, 59% were never, 26% former, and 15% current users of opioids for migraine. Among 8,844 patients with 4 or more migraine headache days per month, 44.9% were never, 31.2% former, and 23.9% current users of opioids for migraine.
There was an increased likelihood of opioid use for migraine in people with pain comorbidities such as back pain, neck pain, and fibromyalgia and in people with anxiety and depression.
Approximately 30%-40% of those who used opioids for migraine were using strong opioids, as defined by the World Health Organization, Dr. Ashina noted. Preliminary analyses indicate that patients tended to receive opioids in a primary care setting, he said.
Eli Lilly funded the OVERCOME study. Dr. Ashina has consulted for Novartis, Amgen, Promius, Supernus, Satsuma, and Allergan. He is on the Editorial Advisory Board for Neurology Reviews.
PHILADELPHIA – People with 4 or more migraine headache days per month are more likely to use opioids, compared with people with fewer migraine headache days per month, researchers said. Opioid use for migraine “remains alarmingly high,” the investigators said at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
Although opioid use for the treatment of migraine typically is discouraged, studies indicate that it is common. Evidence suggests that opioids may increase the risk of progression from episodic to chronic migraine.
To evaluate opioid use in people with migraine, Sait Ashina, MD, of Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, and the research colleagues analyzed data from 21,143 people with migraine who participated in the OVERCOME (Observational Survey of the Epidemiology, Treatment and Care of Migraine), a Web-based study of a representative U.S. sample. OVERCOME enrolled participants in the fall of 2018.
The researchers classified self-reported opioid use for migraine as current use in the past 12 months, former use, or never. Participants had a mean age of 42 years, and 74% were female. The researchers used a multivariable logistic regression model adjusted for age and sex in their analyses.
“Strikingly, we were able to find 19% of people with migraine were reporting current use of opioids,” Dr. Ashina said.
Among 12,299 patients with 0-3 migraine headache days per month, 59% were never, 26% former, and 15% current users of opioids for migraine. Among 8,844 patients with 4 or more migraine headache days per month, 44.9% were never, 31.2% former, and 23.9% current users of opioids for migraine.
There was an increased likelihood of opioid use for migraine in people with pain comorbidities such as back pain, neck pain, and fibromyalgia and in people with anxiety and depression.
Approximately 30%-40% of those who used opioids for migraine were using strong opioids, as defined by the World Health Organization, Dr. Ashina noted. Preliminary analyses indicate that patients tended to receive opioids in a primary care setting, he said.
Eli Lilly funded the OVERCOME study. Dr. Ashina has consulted for Novartis, Amgen, Promius, Supernus, Satsuma, and Allergan. He is on the Editorial Advisory Board for Neurology Reviews.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM AHS 2019
Opioid use is common among migraineurs who take prescription medication
PHILADELPHIA – , according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society. Opioid use among migraineurs is associated with indicators of poor health, such as high body mass index (BMI), high pain scores, and cardiovascular comorbidities. Some variables associated with opioid use are modifiable.
Medical associations do not recommend opioid use for migraine because it may increase the risks of dependence, suboptimal outcomes, and new-onset chronic migraine. Richard B. Lipton, MD, Edwin S. Lowe Chair in neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in Bronx, New York, and colleagues analyzed data from the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) study to identify variables associated with opioid use among patients who treat their headaches with acute prescription medications.
Using a web panel that was demographically similar to the U.S. population, CaMEO identified people with migraine, based on the criteria of the International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd Edition. Dr. Lipton and colleagues examined participants who reported currently using or having on hand acute prescription pain medication to treat headaches. The researchers compared the features (e.g., demographics, attack frequency, treatment choices, headache-related disability, and comorbidity) of self-reported opioid users with those of nonusers. They created nested, multivariable, binary logistic regression models to evaluate opioid use or nonuse as the outcome. Dr. Lipton and colleagues entered covariates in blocks (i.e., sociodemographics, headache and respondent characteristics, psychiatric comorbidities, emergency facility use for headache in the preceding 6 months, and one or more cardiovascular [CV] comorbidity) and removed nonsignificant sociodemographic variables from the model.
The researchers identified 2,388 respondents with migraine who currently used acute prescription medications for headache. Of this group, 867 (36.3%) used opioids. Compared with opioid nonusers, opioid users had significant increases in monthly headache days; frequency of emergency care use for headache within the past 6 months; medication overuse frequency; presence of allodynia, depression, anxiety, and CV comorbidity; Total Pain Index (TPI) scores; and diabetes diagnoses.
Factors significantly associated with opioid use included male sex (odds ratio [OR], 1.74); increasing body mass index BMI (OR, 1.02); allodynia (OR, 1.39); increasing monthly headache day frequency; increasing TPI scores excluding the head, face, and neck (1.32); anxiety (OR, 1.37); depression (OR, 1.50); one or more CV comorbidity (OR, 1.56); and emergency facility use for headache in the past 6 months (OR, 1.73). The OR of opioid use was 1.37 in patients with a monthly headache frequency of 10-14 days and 1.62 in patients with a frequency of 15 or more days, compared with patients with a monthly headache frequency of 0-4 days.
Receiving a diagnosis of migraine or chronic migraine was associated with a significantly lower likelihood of opioid use (OR, 0.38).
Allergan funded the CaMEO study and paid Dr. Lipton for consulting services.
SOURCE: Lipton R et al. AHS 2019. Abstract 629332.
PHILADELPHIA – , according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society. Opioid use among migraineurs is associated with indicators of poor health, such as high body mass index (BMI), high pain scores, and cardiovascular comorbidities. Some variables associated with opioid use are modifiable.
Medical associations do not recommend opioid use for migraine because it may increase the risks of dependence, suboptimal outcomes, and new-onset chronic migraine. Richard B. Lipton, MD, Edwin S. Lowe Chair in neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in Bronx, New York, and colleagues analyzed data from the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) study to identify variables associated with opioid use among patients who treat their headaches with acute prescription medications.
Using a web panel that was demographically similar to the U.S. population, CaMEO identified people with migraine, based on the criteria of the International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd Edition. Dr. Lipton and colleagues examined participants who reported currently using or having on hand acute prescription pain medication to treat headaches. The researchers compared the features (e.g., demographics, attack frequency, treatment choices, headache-related disability, and comorbidity) of self-reported opioid users with those of nonusers. They created nested, multivariable, binary logistic regression models to evaluate opioid use or nonuse as the outcome. Dr. Lipton and colleagues entered covariates in blocks (i.e., sociodemographics, headache and respondent characteristics, psychiatric comorbidities, emergency facility use for headache in the preceding 6 months, and one or more cardiovascular [CV] comorbidity) and removed nonsignificant sociodemographic variables from the model.
The researchers identified 2,388 respondents with migraine who currently used acute prescription medications for headache. Of this group, 867 (36.3%) used opioids. Compared with opioid nonusers, opioid users had significant increases in monthly headache days; frequency of emergency care use for headache within the past 6 months; medication overuse frequency; presence of allodynia, depression, anxiety, and CV comorbidity; Total Pain Index (TPI) scores; and diabetes diagnoses.
Factors significantly associated with opioid use included male sex (odds ratio [OR], 1.74); increasing body mass index BMI (OR, 1.02); allodynia (OR, 1.39); increasing monthly headache day frequency; increasing TPI scores excluding the head, face, and neck (1.32); anxiety (OR, 1.37); depression (OR, 1.50); one or more CV comorbidity (OR, 1.56); and emergency facility use for headache in the past 6 months (OR, 1.73). The OR of opioid use was 1.37 in patients with a monthly headache frequency of 10-14 days and 1.62 in patients with a frequency of 15 or more days, compared with patients with a monthly headache frequency of 0-4 days.
Receiving a diagnosis of migraine or chronic migraine was associated with a significantly lower likelihood of opioid use (OR, 0.38).
Allergan funded the CaMEO study and paid Dr. Lipton for consulting services.
SOURCE: Lipton R et al. AHS 2019. Abstract 629332.
PHILADELPHIA – , according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society. Opioid use among migraineurs is associated with indicators of poor health, such as high body mass index (BMI), high pain scores, and cardiovascular comorbidities. Some variables associated with opioid use are modifiable.
Medical associations do not recommend opioid use for migraine because it may increase the risks of dependence, suboptimal outcomes, and new-onset chronic migraine. Richard B. Lipton, MD, Edwin S. Lowe Chair in neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in Bronx, New York, and colleagues analyzed data from the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) study to identify variables associated with opioid use among patients who treat their headaches with acute prescription medications.
Using a web panel that was demographically similar to the U.S. population, CaMEO identified people with migraine, based on the criteria of the International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd Edition. Dr. Lipton and colleagues examined participants who reported currently using or having on hand acute prescription pain medication to treat headaches. The researchers compared the features (e.g., demographics, attack frequency, treatment choices, headache-related disability, and comorbidity) of self-reported opioid users with those of nonusers. They created nested, multivariable, binary logistic regression models to evaluate opioid use or nonuse as the outcome. Dr. Lipton and colleagues entered covariates in blocks (i.e., sociodemographics, headache and respondent characteristics, psychiatric comorbidities, emergency facility use for headache in the preceding 6 months, and one or more cardiovascular [CV] comorbidity) and removed nonsignificant sociodemographic variables from the model.
The researchers identified 2,388 respondents with migraine who currently used acute prescription medications for headache. Of this group, 867 (36.3%) used opioids. Compared with opioid nonusers, opioid users had significant increases in monthly headache days; frequency of emergency care use for headache within the past 6 months; medication overuse frequency; presence of allodynia, depression, anxiety, and CV comorbidity; Total Pain Index (TPI) scores; and diabetes diagnoses.
Factors significantly associated with opioid use included male sex (odds ratio [OR], 1.74); increasing body mass index BMI (OR, 1.02); allodynia (OR, 1.39); increasing monthly headache day frequency; increasing TPI scores excluding the head, face, and neck (1.32); anxiety (OR, 1.37); depression (OR, 1.50); one or more CV comorbidity (OR, 1.56); and emergency facility use for headache in the past 6 months (OR, 1.73). The OR of opioid use was 1.37 in patients with a monthly headache frequency of 10-14 days and 1.62 in patients with a frequency of 15 or more days, compared with patients with a monthly headache frequency of 0-4 days.
Receiving a diagnosis of migraine or chronic migraine was associated with a significantly lower likelihood of opioid use (OR, 0.38).
Allergan funded the CaMEO study and paid Dr. Lipton for consulting services.
SOURCE: Lipton R et al. AHS 2019. Abstract 629332.
REPORTING FROM AHS 2019
Opioid exposure leads to poor perinatal and postnatal outcomes
according to data from more than 8,000 children.
Previous studies have shown the increased risk of a range of health problems associated with maternal opioid use, including neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS), but data on the long-term consequences of in utero opioid exposure are limited, wrote Romuladus E. Azuine, DrPH, MPH, of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, Md., and colleagues.
In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed data from 8,509 mother/newborn pairs in the Boston Birth Cohort, a database that included a large urban, low-income, multiethnic population of women who had singleton births at the Boston Medical Center starting in 1998.
A total of 454 infants (5%) experienced prenatal opioid exposure. Mothers were interviewed 48-72 hours after delivery about sociodemographic factors, drug use, smoking, and alcohol use.
The risk of small for gestational age and preterm birth were significantly higher in babies exposed to opioids (OR 1.87 and OR 1.49, respectively), compared with unexposed newborns.
Children’s developmental outcomes were collected starting in 2003 based on electronic medical records. A total of 3,153 mother-newborn pairs were enrolled in a postnatal follow-up study. For preschoolers, prenatal opioid exposure was associated with increased risk of lack of expected physiological development and conduct disorder/emotional disturbance (OR 1.80 and OR 2.13, respectively), compared with unexposed children. School-aged children with prenatal opioid exposure had an increased risk of ADHD (OR 2.55).
The incidence of NAS in the study population was at least 24 per 1,000 hospital births starting in 2004, and peaked at 61 per 1,000 hospital births in 2008, but remained higher than 32 per 1,000 through 2016.
The study findings were limited by several factors including potential misclassification of opioid exposure, confounding from other pregnancy exposures, loss of many participants to follow-up, and a lack of generalizability, but the results support the need for additional research, and show that the prevalence of NAS was approximately 10 times the national average in a subset of low-income, urban, minority women, the researchers said.
“However, the effect of opioids is still difficult to disentangle from effects of other childhood exposures. Policy and programmatic efforts to prevent NAS and mitigate its health consequences require more comprehensive longitudinal and intergenerational research,” they concluded.
The study findings contribute to and support the evidence of poor neurodevelopmental and emotional/behavioral outcomes for children with prenatal exposure to opioids or a history of NAS, Susan Brogly, PhD, MSc, noted in an accompanying editorial. Other studies have shown increased risks for visual impairments including strabismus, reduced visual acuity, and delayed visual maturation.
Dr. Brogly, of Queen’s University, Kingston Health Science Center, Ontario, nonetheless noted that a child’s home environment may modify the impact of prenatal opioid exposure or NAS, as evidence has shown that children with in utero heroin exposure have improved outcomes in healthy home environments.
Although the mechanism for how opioid exposure affects development remains uncertain, she suggested that future research should address “interventions to improve health outcomes in this rapidly growing population of children, regardless of the causal mechanism of impairment.”
Dr. Brogly noted that most of the opioid-using mothers in the study by Azuine et al. were unmarried, non-Hispanic white, and multiparous, and had histories of other substance abuse. She emphasized the need for supportive communities for women at risk of opioid use, who also are more likely to have unstable housing situations and histories of sexual and physical abuse.
“The risks of poor pregnancy and child outcomes in cases of maternal opioid exposure are not because of prenatal opioid exposure alone; ongoing difficult social and environmental circumstances have an important role,” and future interventions should address these circumstances to improve long-term health of high-risk women and their children, she emphasized.
The Boston Birth Cohort study is supported in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. None of the authors had financial conflicts to disclose.
Dr. Brogly disclosed grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development outside the submitted work.
SOURCE: Azuine RE et al. JAMA Network Open. 2019 Jun 28. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.6405; Brogly S. JAMA Network Open. 2019 Jun 28. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.6428.
according to data from more than 8,000 children.
Previous studies have shown the increased risk of a range of health problems associated with maternal opioid use, including neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS), but data on the long-term consequences of in utero opioid exposure are limited, wrote Romuladus E. Azuine, DrPH, MPH, of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, Md., and colleagues.
In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed data from 8,509 mother/newborn pairs in the Boston Birth Cohort, a database that included a large urban, low-income, multiethnic population of women who had singleton births at the Boston Medical Center starting in 1998.
A total of 454 infants (5%) experienced prenatal opioid exposure. Mothers were interviewed 48-72 hours after delivery about sociodemographic factors, drug use, smoking, and alcohol use.
The risk of small for gestational age and preterm birth were significantly higher in babies exposed to opioids (OR 1.87 and OR 1.49, respectively), compared with unexposed newborns.
Children’s developmental outcomes were collected starting in 2003 based on electronic medical records. A total of 3,153 mother-newborn pairs were enrolled in a postnatal follow-up study. For preschoolers, prenatal opioid exposure was associated with increased risk of lack of expected physiological development and conduct disorder/emotional disturbance (OR 1.80 and OR 2.13, respectively), compared with unexposed children. School-aged children with prenatal opioid exposure had an increased risk of ADHD (OR 2.55).
The incidence of NAS in the study population was at least 24 per 1,000 hospital births starting in 2004, and peaked at 61 per 1,000 hospital births in 2008, but remained higher than 32 per 1,000 through 2016.
The study findings were limited by several factors including potential misclassification of opioid exposure, confounding from other pregnancy exposures, loss of many participants to follow-up, and a lack of generalizability, but the results support the need for additional research, and show that the prevalence of NAS was approximately 10 times the national average in a subset of low-income, urban, minority women, the researchers said.
“However, the effect of opioids is still difficult to disentangle from effects of other childhood exposures. Policy and programmatic efforts to prevent NAS and mitigate its health consequences require more comprehensive longitudinal and intergenerational research,” they concluded.
The study findings contribute to and support the evidence of poor neurodevelopmental and emotional/behavioral outcomes for children with prenatal exposure to opioids or a history of NAS, Susan Brogly, PhD, MSc, noted in an accompanying editorial. Other studies have shown increased risks for visual impairments including strabismus, reduced visual acuity, and delayed visual maturation.
Dr. Brogly, of Queen’s University, Kingston Health Science Center, Ontario, nonetheless noted that a child’s home environment may modify the impact of prenatal opioid exposure or NAS, as evidence has shown that children with in utero heroin exposure have improved outcomes in healthy home environments.
Although the mechanism for how opioid exposure affects development remains uncertain, she suggested that future research should address “interventions to improve health outcomes in this rapidly growing population of children, regardless of the causal mechanism of impairment.”
Dr. Brogly noted that most of the opioid-using mothers in the study by Azuine et al. were unmarried, non-Hispanic white, and multiparous, and had histories of other substance abuse. She emphasized the need for supportive communities for women at risk of opioid use, who also are more likely to have unstable housing situations and histories of sexual and physical abuse.
“The risks of poor pregnancy and child outcomes in cases of maternal opioid exposure are not because of prenatal opioid exposure alone; ongoing difficult social and environmental circumstances have an important role,” and future interventions should address these circumstances to improve long-term health of high-risk women and their children, she emphasized.
The Boston Birth Cohort study is supported in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. None of the authors had financial conflicts to disclose.
Dr. Brogly disclosed grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development outside the submitted work.
SOURCE: Azuine RE et al. JAMA Network Open. 2019 Jun 28. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.6405; Brogly S. JAMA Network Open. 2019 Jun 28. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.6428.
according to data from more than 8,000 children.
Previous studies have shown the increased risk of a range of health problems associated with maternal opioid use, including neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS), but data on the long-term consequences of in utero opioid exposure are limited, wrote Romuladus E. Azuine, DrPH, MPH, of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, Md., and colleagues.
In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed data from 8,509 mother/newborn pairs in the Boston Birth Cohort, a database that included a large urban, low-income, multiethnic population of women who had singleton births at the Boston Medical Center starting in 1998.
A total of 454 infants (5%) experienced prenatal opioid exposure. Mothers were interviewed 48-72 hours after delivery about sociodemographic factors, drug use, smoking, and alcohol use.
The risk of small for gestational age and preterm birth were significantly higher in babies exposed to opioids (OR 1.87 and OR 1.49, respectively), compared with unexposed newborns.
Children’s developmental outcomes were collected starting in 2003 based on electronic medical records. A total of 3,153 mother-newborn pairs were enrolled in a postnatal follow-up study. For preschoolers, prenatal opioid exposure was associated with increased risk of lack of expected physiological development and conduct disorder/emotional disturbance (OR 1.80 and OR 2.13, respectively), compared with unexposed children. School-aged children with prenatal opioid exposure had an increased risk of ADHD (OR 2.55).
The incidence of NAS in the study population was at least 24 per 1,000 hospital births starting in 2004, and peaked at 61 per 1,000 hospital births in 2008, but remained higher than 32 per 1,000 through 2016.
The study findings were limited by several factors including potential misclassification of opioid exposure, confounding from other pregnancy exposures, loss of many participants to follow-up, and a lack of generalizability, but the results support the need for additional research, and show that the prevalence of NAS was approximately 10 times the national average in a subset of low-income, urban, minority women, the researchers said.
“However, the effect of opioids is still difficult to disentangle from effects of other childhood exposures. Policy and programmatic efforts to prevent NAS and mitigate its health consequences require more comprehensive longitudinal and intergenerational research,” they concluded.
The study findings contribute to and support the evidence of poor neurodevelopmental and emotional/behavioral outcomes for children with prenatal exposure to opioids or a history of NAS, Susan Brogly, PhD, MSc, noted in an accompanying editorial. Other studies have shown increased risks for visual impairments including strabismus, reduced visual acuity, and delayed visual maturation.
Dr. Brogly, of Queen’s University, Kingston Health Science Center, Ontario, nonetheless noted that a child’s home environment may modify the impact of prenatal opioid exposure or NAS, as evidence has shown that children with in utero heroin exposure have improved outcomes in healthy home environments.
Although the mechanism for how opioid exposure affects development remains uncertain, she suggested that future research should address “interventions to improve health outcomes in this rapidly growing population of children, regardless of the causal mechanism of impairment.”
Dr. Brogly noted that most of the opioid-using mothers in the study by Azuine et al. were unmarried, non-Hispanic white, and multiparous, and had histories of other substance abuse. She emphasized the need for supportive communities for women at risk of opioid use, who also are more likely to have unstable housing situations and histories of sexual and physical abuse.
“The risks of poor pregnancy and child outcomes in cases of maternal opioid exposure are not because of prenatal opioid exposure alone; ongoing difficult social and environmental circumstances have an important role,” and future interventions should address these circumstances to improve long-term health of high-risk women and their children, she emphasized.
The Boston Birth Cohort study is supported in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. None of the authors had financial conflicts to disclose.
Dr. Brogly disclosed grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development outside the submitted work.
SOURCE: Azuine RE et al. JAMA Network Open. 2019 Jun 28. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.6405; Brogly S. JAMA Network Open. 2019 Jun 28. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.6428.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Mindfulness-based relapse prevention tied to lower anxiety, depression
SAN ANTONIO – A mindfulness-based relapse prevention program resulted in significantly greater declines in anxiety and depressive symptoms among participants in an opioid addiction treatment program than those seen in patients who received treatment as usual, suggest results of a small nonrandomized controlled trial. Relapse rates trended downward with mindfulness but were not significantly different from the treatment-as-usual (TAU) group.
“Mindfulness-based relapse prevention (MBRP) can be successfully implemented in an outpatient setting with as good as or better results as treatment as usual,” Keith J. Zullig, PhD, MSPH, chair and professor in the department of social and behavioral sciences at the West Virginia University School of Public Health in Morgantown, said at the annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence.
Though relapse rates did not show a statistically significant drop with mindfulness treatment compared with treatment as usual, the downward trend suggests that it is worthwhile to conduct a larger scale study, Dr. Zullig said.
, he added.
The researchers recruited 60 participants from a Comprehensive Opioid Addiction Treatment program who had been substance free for at least 90 consecutive days. Participants chose whether to enter the MBRP group or the treatment-as-usual group.
The treatment-as-usual group attended biweekly 60-minute sessions with a cognitive-based therapy process group led by a licensed therapist for 36 weeks. The MBRP group involved 24 weeks of biweekly attendance at 60-minute sessions, also led by a licensed therapist, followed by 12 weeks in the treatment-as-usual group.
The MBRP instruction involved the following:
- Mindful skill building
- Breathing
- Meditation
- Mindful movement (“gentle yoga practiced with mindful awareness of the body”)
- Using all the senses
- Increasing awareness of breath, body sensations, thoughts, and emotional energy
- Mindfulness in everyday life
- Daily home practice of formal mindfulness meditation for 30 minutes per day, 5-6 days a week
- Discussing practice/exercises both in and outside class
Researchers tracked retention rates, any prohibited substance relapse, and four self-reported measures at 12, 24, and 36 weeks’ follow-up. The self-reported measures looked at craving, with the Desire for Drug Questionnaire; anxiety, with the Overall Anxiety Severity and Impairment Scale, range 0-20); depression, with the Overall Depression Severity and Impairment Scale, range 0-20; and mindfulness, with the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire.
Participants in both groups were statistically similar in gender, employment, education, insurance, and marital status at baseline.
Of the 24 patients who entered the MBRP program, 14 completed the full 24 weeks of intervention and 12 subsequent weeks. Among the 36 participants who entered the treatment-as-usual group, 20 completed the 36 weeks.
Retention was 75% in both groups at 24 weeks, but retention from 24 to 36 weeks was nonsignificantly greater in the mindfulness group (93% vs. 91% treatment as usual).
Relapse at both 24 and 36 weeks was lower among those using mindfulness but without a statistically significant difference. At 24 weeks, 44% of the treatment-as-usual participants had relapsed at least once, compared with 33% of the MBRP participants (intent to treat).
At 36 weeks (n = 37), 45% of the 22 remaining in the treatment-as-usual group had relapsed, compared with 40% of the 15 in the MBRP group. However, 20% of those in MBRP (3 of 15) relapsed between the 24 and 36 week follow-ups, compared with 5% (1 of 22) in the treatment-as-usual group, still a nonsignificant difference.
Anxiety scores were higher at baseline in the MBRP group (11 MBRP vs. 7.25 TAU) but were similar in both groups at 36 weeks (5.79 MBRP vs. 5.6 TAU). Depression scores also were higher at baseline in the MBRP (8 vs. 6.3) but ended slightly lower than the treatment-as-usual group at 36 weeks (3.71 MBRP vs. 4.35 TAU). The reductions in depression and anxiety scores for the MBRP group were significantly greater than in the treatment-as-usual group.
Mindfulness scores were not significantly different at baseline between the groups but were significantly higher at 36 weeks in the mindfulness groups (3.47 vs. 3.3, range 1-5).
“Relapse rates were trending lower in the MBRP group although not statistically significant,” Dr. Zullig said. “Significant decreases occurred in craving in both MBRP and treatment-as-usual groups.”
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funded the research. The authors had no disclosures.
SAN ANTONIO – A mindfulness-based relapse prevention program resulted in significantly greater declines in anxiety and depressive symptoms among participants in an opioid addiction treatment program than those seen in patients who received treatment as usual, suggest results of a small nonrandomized controlled trial. Relapse rates trended downward with mindfulness but were not significantly different from the treatment-as-usual (TAU) group.
“Mindfulness-based relapse prevention (MBRP) can be successfully implemented in an outpatient setting with as good as or better results as treatment as usual,” Keith J. Zullig, PhD, MSPH, chair and professor in the department of social and behavioral sciences at the West Virginia University School of Public Health in Morgantown, said at the annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence.
Though relapse rates did not show a statistically significant drop with mindfulness treatment compared with treatment as usual, the downward trend suggests that it is worthwhile to conduct a larger scale study, Dr. Zullig said.
, he added.
The researchers recruited 60 participants from a Comprehensive Opioid Addiction Treatment program who had been substance free for at least 90 consecutive days. Participants chose whether to enter the MBRP group or the treatment-as-usual group.
The treatment-as-usual group attended biweekly 60-minute sessions with a cognitive-based therapy process group led by a licensed therapist for 36 weeks. The MBRP group involved 24 weeks of biweekly attendance at 60-minute sessions, also led by a licensed therapist, followed by 12 weeks in the treatment-as-usual group.
The MBRP instruction involved the following:
- Mindful skill building
- Breathing
- Meditation
- Mindful movement (“gentle yoga practiced with mindful awareness of the body”)
- Using all the senses
- Increasing awareness of breath, body sensations, thoughts, and emotional energy
- Mindfulness in everyday life
- Daily home practice of formal mindfulness meditation for 30 minutes per day, 5-6 days a week
- Discussing practice/exercises both in and outside class
Researchers tracked retention rates, any prohibited substance relapse, and four self-reported measures at 12, 24, and 36 weeks’ follow-up. The self-reported measures looked at craving, with the Desire for Drug Questionnaire; anxiety, with the Overall Anxiety Severity and Impairment Scale, range 0-20); depression, with the Overall Depression Severity and Impairment Scale, range 0-20; and mindfulness, with the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire.
Participants in both groups were statistically similar in gender, employment, education, insurance, and marital status at baseline.
Of the 24 patients who entered the MBRP program, 14 completed the full 24 weeks of intervention and 12 subsequent weeks. Among the 36 participants who entered the treatment-as-usual group, 20 completed the 36 weeks.
Retention was 75% in both groups at 24 weeks, but retention from 24 to 36 weeks was nonsignificantly greater in the mindfulness group (93% vs. 91% treatment as usual).
Relapse at both 24 and 36 weeks was lower among those using mindfulness but without a statistically significant difference. At 24 weeks, 44% of the treatment-as-usual participants had relapsed at least once, compared with 33% of the MBRP participants (intent to treat).
At 36 weeks (n = 37), 45% of the 22 remaining in the treatment-as-usual group had relapsed, compared with 40% of the 15 in the MBRP group. However, 20% of those in MBRP (3 of 15) relapsed between the 24 and 36 week follow-ups, compared with 5% (1 of 22) in the treatment-as-usual group, still a nonsignificant difference.
Anxiety scores were higher at baseline in the MBRP group (11 MBRP vs. 7.25 TAU) but were similar in both groups at 36 weeks (5.79 MBRP vs. 5.6 TAU). Depression scores also were higher at baseline in the MBRP (8 vs. 6.3) but ended slightly lower than the treatment-as-usual group at 36 weeks (3.71 MBRP vs. 4.35 TAU). The reductions in depression and anxiety scores for the MBRP group were significantly greater than in the treatment-as-usual group.
Mindfulness scores were not significantly different at baseline between the groups but were significantly higher at 36 weeks in the mindfulness groups (3.47 vs. 3.3, range 1-5).
“Relapse rates were trending lower in the MBRP group although not statistically significant,” Dr. Zullig said. “Significant decreases occurred in craving in both MBRP and treatment-as-usual groups.”
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funded the research. The authors had no disclosures.
SAN ANTONIO – A mindfulness-based relapse prevention program resulted in significantly greater declines in anxiety and depressive symptoms among participants in an opioid addiction treatment program than those seen in patients who received treatment as usual, suggest results of a small nonrandomized controlled trial. Relapse rates trended downward with mindfulness but were not significantly different from the treatment-as-usual (TAU) group.
“Mindfulness-based relapse prevention (MBRP) can be successfully implemented in an outpatient setting with as good as or better results as treatment as usual,” Keith J. Zullig, PhD, MSPH, chair and professor in the department of social and behavioral sciences at the West Virginia University School of Public Health in Morgantown, said at the annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence.
Though relapse rates did not show a statistically significant drop with mindfulness treatment compared with treatment as usual, the downward trend suggests that it is worthwhile to conduct a larger scale study, Dr. Zullig said.
, he added.
The researchers recruited 60 participants from a Comprehensive Opioid Addiction Treatment program who had been substance free for at least 90 consecutive days. Participants chose whether to enter the MBRP group or the treatment-as-usual group.
The treatment-as-usual group attended biweekly 60-minute sessions with a cognitive-based therapy process group led by a licensed therapist for 36 weeks. The MBRP group involved 24 weeks of biweekly attendance at 60-minute sessions, also led by a licensed therapist, followed by 12 weeks in the treatment-as-usual group.
The MBRP instruction involved the following:
- Mindful skill building
- Breathing
- Meditation
- Mindful movement (“gentle yoga practiced with mindful awareness of the body”)
- Using all the senses
- Increasing awareness of breath, body sensations, thoughts, and emotional energy
- Mindfulness in everyday life
- Daily home practice of formal mindfulness meditation for 30 minutes per day, 5-6 days a week
- Discussing practice/exercises both in and outside class
Researchers tracked retention rates, any prohibited substance relapse, and four self-reported measures at 12, 24, and 36 weeks’ follow-up. The self-reported measures looked at craving, with the Desire for Drug Questionnaire; anxiety, with the Overall Anxiety Severity and Impairment Scale, range 0-20); depression, with the Overall Depression Severity and Impairment Scale, range 0-20; and mindfulness, with the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire.
Participants in both groups were statistically similar in gender, employment, education, insurance, and marital status at baseline.
Of the 24 patients who entered the MBRP program, 14 completed the full 24 weeks of intervention and 12 subsequent weeks. Among the 36 participants who entered the treatment-as-usual group, 20 completed the 36 weeks.
Retention was 75% in both groups at 24 weeks, but retention from 24 to 36 weeks was nonsignificantly greater in the mindfulness group (93% vs. 91% treatment as usual).
Relapse at both 24 and 36 weeks was lower among those using mindfulness but without a statistically significant difference. At 24 weeks, 44% of the treatment-as-usual participants had relapsed at least once, compared with 33% of the MBRP participants (intent to treat).
At 36 weeks (n = 37), 45% of the 22 remaining in the treatment-as-usual group had relapsed, compared with 40% of the 15 in the MBRP group. However, 20% of those in MBRP (3 of 15) relapsed between the 24 and 36 week follow-ups, compared with 5% (1 of 22) in the treatment-as-usual group, still a nonsignificant difference.
Anxiety scores were higher at baseline in the MBRP group (11 MBRP vs. 7.25 TAU) but were similar in both groups at 36 weeks (5.79 MBRP vs. 5.6 TAU). Depression scores also were higher at baseline in the MBRP (8 vs. 6.3) but ended slightly lower than the treatment-as-usual group at 36 weeks (3.71 MBRP vs. 4.35 TAU). The reductions in depression and anxiety scores for the MBRP group were significantly greater than in the treatment-as-usual group.
Mindfulness scores were not significantly different at baseline between the groups but were significantly higher at 36 weeks in the mindfulness groups (3.47 vs. 3.3, range 1-5).
“Relapse rates were trending lower in the MBRP group although not statistically significant,” Dr. Zullig said. “Significant decreases occurred in craving in both MBRP and treatment-as-usual groups.”
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funded the research. The authors had no disclosures.
REPORTING FROM CPDD 2019
Split-dose oxycodone protocol reduces opioid use after cesarean
according to a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.
A retrospective study reviewed medical records of 1,050 women undergoing cesarean delivery, 508 of whom were treated after a change in protocol for postdelivery oxycodone orders. Instead of a 5-mg oral dose given for a verbal pain score of 4/10 or below and 10 mg for a pain score of 5-10/10, patients were given 2.5-mg or 5-mg dose respectively, with a nurse check after 1 hour to see if more of the same dosage was needed.
The split-dose approach was associated with a 56% reduction in median opioid consumption in the first 48 hours after cesarean delivery; 10 mg before the change in practice to 4.4 mg after it. There was also a 6.9-percentage-point decrease in the number of patients needing any postoperative opioids.
While the study did show a slight increase in average verbal pain scores in the first 58 hours after surgery – from a mean of 1.8 before the split-dose protocol was introduced to 2 after it was introduced – there was no increase in the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, acetaminophen, or gabapentin, and no difference in peak verbal pain scores.
“Our goal with the introduction of this new order set was to use a patient-centered, response-feedback approach to postcesarean delivery analgesia in the form of split doses of oxycodone rather than the traditional standard dose model,” wrote Jalal A. Nanji, MD, of the department of anesthesiology and pain medicine at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, and coauthors. “Involving patients in the decision for how much postcesarean delivery analgesia they will receive has been found to reduce opioid use and improve maternal satisfaction.”
The number of patients reporting postoperative nausea or vomiting was halved in those treated with the split-dose regimen, with no difference in mean overall patient satisfaction score.
Dr. Nanji and associates wrote that women viewed avoiding nausea or vomiting after a cesarean as a high priority, and targeting the root cause – excessive opioid use – was preferable to treating nausea and vomiting with antiemetics.
They also noted that input from nursing staff was vital in developing the new split-order set, not only because it directly affected nursing work flow but also to optimize the process.
“With the opioid epidemic on the rise and the increase in efforts by physicians to decrease outpatient opioid prescriptions, this study is extremely relevant and timely,” commented Marissa Platner, MD, an assistant professor in maternal-fetal medicine at Emory University, Atlanta.
“Although this study is retrospective and, therefore, there are inherent biases and an inability to control all contributing factors, it clearly demonstrates that, overall, there seem to be improved outcomes with split-dose protocol of opioid administration during the postoperative period in terms of overall patient satisfaction, opioid consumption, and postoperative nausea and vomiting. The patient-centered nature and response-feedback design of this study also contributes to its strength and improves its generalizability. In order to encourage others to considering adapting protocol in other institutions, it should be evaluated via a randomized controlled trial," Dr. Platner said in an interview.*
"The premise and execution of this study were novel and interesting," commented Katrina Mark, MD, associate professor of obstetrics, gynecology & reproductive sciences at the University of Maryland School of Medicine. "The authors found that by decreasing the standard doses of oxycodone ordered after a cesarean section and asking women if they desired better pain control, rather than reacting only to a pain score, patients’ overall postoperative usage of opiates also decreased. In decreasing the amount of opiates used, the authors also observed a decrease some of the side effects associated with opiate use, which is promising.
"This study, among other recent studies, highlights the fact that postoperative prescribing standards are not evidence-based and may lead to overprescribing of opiates. Improving prescribing practices is a noble and important goal. In this study, a change in clinical practice among both nurses and prescribers is likely what caused the greatest change. The use of a protocol which prescribed oxycodone based on asking if a woman desired improved pain control, rather than prescribing only based on her pain score response, makes a lot of intuitive sense. Decreasing opioid consumption requires education of healthcare providers and patients, and protocols like this one will help to encourage that conversation," she noted in an interview.
"Before the findings of this study can be widely adopted, however, there are two major points that will need to be addressed," Dr. Mark emphasized. "The first is patient satisfaction. The peak pain scores were not different between the groups, but the mean pain scores were. The authors deemed this clinically insignificant, which it may be. However, without the patients’ perspective on this new protocol, it is difficult to tell if the opioid usage decreased because women actually needed less opiates or if it decreased because the system discouraged opioid use and made it more challenging for them to obtain the medicine they needed to achieve adequate pain control. The desire to decrease opioid prescribing is warranted, and likely completely appropriate, but there is certainly a role for opioids in pain management. We should not be so motivated to decrease use that we cause unnecessary suffering. The second point that will need to be addressed is the effect on nursing practice. There was no standardized evaluation of the impact that this protocol had on the nursing staff, and it is unclear if this protocol would require greater resources than may be readily available at all hospitals."**
The study was supported by the department of anesthesiology, perioperative, and pain medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University. One author declared travel funding from a university. No other conflicts of interest were declared. Dr. Platner and Dr. Mark also had no relevant financial disclosures.*
SOURCE: Nanji J et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2019. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003305.
*This article was updated on 7/15/2019.
**It was updated again on 7/17/2019.
according to a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.
A retrospective study reviewed medical records of 1,050 women undergoing cesarean delivery, 508 of whom were treated after a change in protocol for postdelivery oxycodone orders. Instead of a 5-mg oral dose given for a verbal pain score of 4/10 or below and 10 mg for a pain score of 5-10/10, patients were given 2.5-mg or 5-mg dose respectively, with a nurse check after 1 hour to see if more of the same dosage was needed.
The split-dose approach was associated with a 56% reduction in median opioid consumption in the first 48 hours after cesarean delivery; 10 mg before the change in practice to 4.4 mg after it. There was also a 6.9-percentage-point decrease in the number of patients needing any postoperative opioids.
While the study did show a slight increase in average verbal pain scores in the first 58 hours after surgery – from a mean of 1.8 before the split-dose protocol was introduced to 2 after it was introduced – there was no increase in the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, acetaminophen, or gabapentin, and no difference in peak verbal pain scores.
“Our goal with the introduction of this new order set was to use a patient-centered, response-feedback approach to postcesarean delivery analgesia in the form of split doses of oxycodone rather than the traditional standard dose model,” wrote Jalal A. Nanji, MD, of the department of anesthesiology and pain medicine at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, and coauthors. “Involving patients in the decision for how much postcesarean delivery analgesia they will receive has been found to reduce opioid use and improve maternal satisfaction.”
The number of patients reporting postoperative nausea or vomiting was halved in those treated with the split-dose regimen, with no difference in mean overall patient satisfaction score.
Dr. Nanji and associates wrote that women viewed avoiding nausea or vomiting after a cesarean as a high priority, and targeting the root cause – excessive opioid use – was preferable to treating nausea and vomiting with antiemetics.
They also noted that input from nursing staff was vital in developing the new split-order set, not only because it directly affected nursing work flow but also to optimize the process.
“With the opioid epidemic on the rise and the increase in efforts by physicians to decrease outpatient opioid prescriptions, this study is extremely relevant and timely,” commented Marissa Platner, MD, an assistant professor in maternal-fetal medicine at Emory University, Atlanta.
“Although this study is retrospective and, therefore, there are inherent biases and an inability to control all contributing factors, it clearly demonstrates that, overall, there seem to be improved outcomes with split-dose protocol of opioid administration during the postoperative period in terms of overall patient satisfaction, opioid consumption, and postoperative nausea and vomiting. The patient-centered nature and response-feedback design of this study also contributes to its strength and improves its generalizability. In order to encourage others to considering adapting protocol in other institutions, it should be evaluated via a randomized controlled trial," Dr. Platner said in an interview.*
"The premise and execution of this study were novel and interesting," commented Katrina Mark, MD, associate professor of obstetrics, gynecology & reproductive sciences at the University of Maryland School of Medicine. "The authors found that by decreasing the standard doses of oxycodone ordered after a cesarean section and asking women if they desired better pain control, rather than reacting only to a pain score, patients’ overall postoperative usage of opiates also decreased. In decreasing the amount of opiates used, the authors also observed a decrease some of the side effects associated with opiate use, which is promising.
"This study, among other recent studies, highlights the fact that postoperative prescribing standards are not evidence-based and may lead to overprescribing of opiates. Improving prescribing practices is a noble and important goal. In this study, a change in clinical practice among both nurses and prescribers is likely what caused the greatest change. The use of a protocol which prescribed oxycodone based on asking if a woman desired improved pain control, rather than prescribing only based on her pain score response, makes a lot of intuitive sense. Decreasing opioid consumption requires education of healthcare providers and patients, and protocols like this one will help to encourage that conversation," she noted in an interview.
"Before the findings of this study can be widely adopted, however, there are two major points that will need to be addressed," Dr. Mark emphasized. "The first is patient satisfaction. The peak pain scores were not different between the groups, but the mean pain scores were. The authors deemed this clinically insignificant, which it may be. However, without the patients’ perspective on this new protocol, it is difficult to tell if the opioid usage decreased because women actually needed less opiates or if it decreased because the system discouraged opioid use and made it more challenging for them to obtain the medicine they needed to achieve adequate pain control. The desire to decrease opioid prescribing is warranted, and likely completely appropriate, but there is certainly a role for opioids in pain management. We should not be so motivated to decrease use that we cause unnecessary suffering. The second point that will need to be addressed is the effect on nursing practice. There was no standardized evaluation of the impact that this protocol had on the nursing staff, and it is unclear if this protocol would require greater resources than may be readily available at all hospitals."**
The study was supported by the department of anesthesiology, perioperative, and pain medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University. One author declared travel funding from a university. No other conflicts of interest were declared. Dr. Platner and Dr. Mark also had no relevant financial disclosures.*
SOURCE: Nanji J et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2019. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003305.
*This article was updated on 7/15/2019.
**It was updated again on 7/17/2019.
according to a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.
A retrospective study reviewed medical records of 1,050 women undergoing cesarean delivery, 508 of whom were treated after a change in protocol for postdelivery oxycodone orders. Instead of a 5-mg oral dose given for a verbal pain score of 4/10 or below and 10 mg for a pain score of 5-10/10, patients were given 2.5-mg or 5-mg dose respectively, with a nurse check after 1 hour to see if more of the same dosage was needed.
The split-dose approach was associated with a 56% reduction in median opioid consumption in the first 48 hours after cesarean delivery; 10 mg before the change in practice to 4.4 mg after it. There was also a 6.9-percentage-point decrease in the number of patients needing any postoperative opioids.
While the study did show a slight increase in average verbal pain scores in the first 58 hours after surgery – from a mean of 1.8 before the split-dose protocol was introduced to 2 after it was introduced – there was no increase in the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, acetaminophen, or gabapentin, and no difference in peak verbal pain scores.
“Our goal with the introduction of this new order set was to use a patient-centered, response-feedback approach to postcesarean delivery analgesia in the form of split doses of oxycodone rather than the traditional standard dose model,” wrote Jalal A. Nanji, MD, of the department of anesthesiology and pain medicine at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, and coauthors. “Involving patients in the decision for how much postcesarean delivery analgesia they will receive has been found to reduce opioid use and improve maternal satisfaction.”
The number of patients reporting postoperative nausea or vomiting was halved in those treated with the split-dose regimen, with no difference in mean overall patient satisfaction score.
Dr. Nanji and associates wrote that women viewed avoiding nausea or vomiting after a cesarean as a high priority, and targeting the root cause – excessive opioid use – was preferable to treating nausea and vomiting with antiemetics.
They also noted that input from nursing staff was vital in developing the new split-order set, not only because it directly affected nursing work flow but also to optimize the process.
“With the opioid epidemic on the rise and the increase in efforts by physicians to decrease outpatient opioid prescriptions, this study is extremely relevant and timely,” commented Marissa Platner, MD, an assistant professor in maternal-fetal medicine at Emory University, Atlanta.
“Although this study is retrospective and, therefore, there are inherent biases and an inability to control all contributing factors, it clearly demonstrates that, overall, there seem to be improved outcomes with split-dose protocol of opioid administration during the postoperative period in terms of overall patient satisfaction, opioid consumption, and postoperative nausea and vomiting. The patient-centered nature and response-feedback design of this study also contributes to its strength and improves its generalizability. In order to encourage others to considering adapting protocol in other institutions, it should be evaluated via a randomized controlled trial," Dr. Platner said in an interview.*
"The premise and execution of this study were novel and interesting," commented Katrina Mark, MD, associate professor of obstetrics, gynecology & reproductive sciences at the University of Maryland School of Medicine. "The authors found that by decreasing the standard doses of oxycodone ordered after a cesarean section and asking women if they desired better pain control, rather than reacting only to a pain score, patients’ overall postoperative usage of opiates also decreased. In decreasing the amount of opiates used, the authors also observed a decrease some of the side effects associated with opiate use, which is promising.
"This study, among other recent studies, highlights the fact that postoperative prescribing standards are not evidence-based and may lead to overprescribing of opiates. Improving prescribing practices is a noble and important goal. In this study, a change in clinical practice among both nurses and prescribers is likely what caused the greatest change. The use of a protocol which prescribed oxycodone based on asking if a woman desired improved pain control, rather than prescribing only based on her pain score response, makes a lot of intuitive sense. Decreasing opioid consumption requires education of healthcare providers and patients, and protocols like this one will help to encourage that conversation," she noted in an interview.
"Before the findings of this study can be widely adopted, however, there are two major points that will need to be addressed," Dr. Mark emphasized. "The first is patient satisfaction. The peak pain scores were not different between the groups, but the mean pain scores were. The authors deemed this clinically insignificant, which it may be. However, without the patients’ perspective on this new protocol, it is difficult to tell if the opioid usage decreased because women actually needed less opiates or if it decreased because the system discouraged opioid use and made it more challenging for them to obtain the medicine they needed to achieve adequate pain control. The desire to decrease opioid prescribing is warranted, and likely completely appropriate, but there is certainly a role for opioids in pain management. We should not be so motivated to decrease use that we cause unnecessary suffering. The second point that will need to be addressed is the effect on nursing practice. There was no standardized evaluation of the impact that this protocol had on the nursing staff, and it is unclear if this protocol would require greater resources than may be readily available at all hospitals."**
The study was supported by the department of anesthesiology, perioperative, and pain medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University. One author declared travel funding from a university. No other conflicts of interest were declared. Dr. Platner and Dr. Mark also had no relevant financial disclosures.*
SOURCE: Nanji J et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2019. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003305.
*This article was updated on 7/15/2019.
**It was updated again on 7/17/2019.
FROM OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Treatment in prison systems might lead to drop in overdose deaths
Incarceration versus treatment takes center stage in a new analysis of U.S. data from researchers in the United Kingdom.
The researchers performed an observational study looking at rates of incarceration, income, and drug-related deaths from 1983 to 2014 in the United States. They found a strong association between incarceration rates and drug-related deaths. Also, a very strong association was found between lower household income and drug-related deaths. Strikingly, in the counties with the highest incarceration rates, there was a 50% higher rate of drug deaths, reported Elias Nosrati, PhD, and associates (Lancet Public Health. 2019 Jul 3;4:e326-33). It is clearer every day that our opioid epidemic was in part wrought by a zealous push to change protocols on treating chronic pain. The epidemic also appears tied to well-meaning but overprescribing doctors and allegedly unscrupulous pharmaceutical companies and distributors. What we are learning through this most recent study is that another factor tied to the opioid and overdose epidemic could be incarceration.
According to the study, an increase in crime rates combined with sentencing reforms led the number of people incarcerated in state and federal prisons to soar from less than 200,000 in 1970 to almost 1 million in 1995. Furthermore, Dr. Nosrati and associates wrote, “Incarceration is directly associated with stigma, discrimination, poor mental health, and chronic economic hardship, all of which are linked to drug use disorders.”
Treatment for drug addiction in prison systems is rare, as is adequate mental health treatment. However, treatment for this population would likely help reduce drug overdose deaths and improve the quality of life for people who are incarcerated and their families. In the Philadelphia prison system, for example, treatment for inmates is available for opioid addiction, both with methadone and now more recently with buprenorphine (Suboxone). The Philadelphia Department of Prisons also provides cognitive-behavioral therapy. In Florida, Chapter 397 of the Florida statutes – known as the Marchman Act – provides for the involuntary (and voluntary) treatment of individuals with substance abuse problems.
The court systems in South Florida have a robust drug-diversion program, aimed at directing people facing incarceration for drug offenses into treatment instead. North Carolina has studied this issue specifically and found through a model simulation that diverting 10% of drug-abusing offenders out of incarceration into treatment would save $4.8 billion in legal costs for North Carolina counties and state legal systems. Diverting 40% of individuals would close to triple that savings.
There are striking data from programs treating individuals who are leveraged into treatment in order to maintain professional licenses. These such individuals, many of whom are physicians, airline pilots, and nurses, have a rate of sobriety of 90% or greater after 5 years. This data show that
In addition to the potential reduction in morbidity and mortality as well as the financial savings, why is treatment important? Because of societal costs. When parents or family members are put in jail for a drug charge or other charge, they leave behind a community, family, and very often children who are affected economically, emotionally, and socially. Those children in particular have higher risks of depression and PTSD. Diverting an offender into treatment or treating an incarcerated person for drug and mental health problems can change the life of a child or family member, and ultimately can change society.
Dr. Jorandby is chief medical officer of Lakeview Health in Jacksonville, Fla. She trained in addiction psychiatry at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
Incarceration versus treatment takes center stage in a new analysis of U.S. data from researchers in the United Kingdom.
The researchers performed an observational study looking at rates of incarceration, income, and drug-related deaths from 1983 to 2014 in the United States. They found a strong association between incarceration rates and drug-related deaths. Also, a very strong association was found between lower household income and drug-related deaths. Strikingly, in the counties with the highest incarceration rates, there was a 50% higher rate of drug deaths, reported Elias Nosrati, PhD, and associates (Lancet Public Health. 2019 Jul 3;4:e326-33). It is clearer every day that our opioid epidemic was in part wrought by a zealous push to change protocols on treating chronic pain. The epidemic also appears tied to well-meaning but overprescribing doctors and allegedly unscrupulous pharmaceutical companies and distributors. What we are learning through this most recent study is that another factor tied to the opioid and overdose epidemic could be incarceration.
According to the study, an increase in crime rates combined with sentencing reforms led the number of people incarcerated in state and federal prisons to soar from less than 200,000 in 1970 to almost 1 million in 1995. Furthermore, Dr. Nosrati and associates wrote, “Incarceration is directly associated with stigma, discrimination, poor mental health, and chronic economic hardship, all of which are linked to drug use disorders.”
Treatment for drug addiction in prison systems is rare, as is adequate mental health treatment. However, treatment for this population would likely help reduce drug overdose deaths and improve the quality of life for people who are incarcerated and their families. In the Philadelphia prison system, for example, treatment for inmates is available for opioid addiction, both with methadone and now more recently with buprenorphine (Suboxone). The Philadelphia Department of Prisons also provides cognitive-behavioral therapy. In Florida, Chapter 397 of the Florida statutes – known as the Marchman Act – provides for the involuntary (and voluntary) treatment of individuals with substance abuse problems.
The court systems in South Florida have a robust drug-diversion program, aimed at directing people facing incarceration for drug offenses into treatment instead. North Carolina has studied this issue specifically and found through a model simulation that diverting 10% of drug-abusing offenders out of incarceration into treatment would save $4.8 billion in legal costs for North Carolina counties and state legal systems. Diverting 40% of individuals would close to triple that savings.
There are striking data from programs treating individuals who are leveraged into treatment in order to maintain professional licenses. These such individuals, many of whom are physicians, airline pilots, and nurses, have a rate of sobriety of 90% or greater after 5 years. This data show that
In addition to the potential reduction in morbidity and mortality as well as the financial savings, why is treatment important? Because of societal costs. When parents or family members are put in jail for a drug charge or other charge, they leave behind a community, family, and very often children who are affected economically, emotionally, and socially. Those children in particular have higher risks of depression and PTSD. Diverting an offender into treatment or treating an incarcerated person for drug and mental health problems can change the life of a child or family member, and ultimately can change society.
Dr. Jorandby is chief medical officer of Lakeview Health in Jacksonville, Fla. She trained in addiction psychiatry at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
Incarceration versus treatment takes center stage in a new analysis of U.S. data from researchers in the United Kingdom.
The researchers performed an observational study looking at rates of incarceration, income, and drug-related deaths from 1983 to 2014 in the United States. They found a strong association between incarceration rates and drug-related deaths. Also, a very strong association was found between lower household income and drug-related deaths. Strikingly, in the counties with the highest incarceration rates, there was a 50% higher rate of drug deaths, reported Elias Nosrati, PhD, and associates (Lancet Public Health. 2019 Jul 3;4:e326-33). It is clearer every day that our opioid epidemic was in part wrought by a zealous push to change protocols on treating chronic pain. The epidemic also appears tied to well-meaning but overprescribing doctors and allegedly unscrupulous pharmaceutical companies and distributors. What we are learning through this most recent study is that another factor tied to the opioid and overdose epidemic could be incarceration.
According to the study, an increase in crime rates combined with sentencing reforms led the number of people incarcerated in state and federal prisons to soar from less than 200,000 in 1970 to almost 1 million in 1995. Furthermore, Dr. Nosrati and associates wrote, “Incarceration is directly associated with stigma, discrimination, poor mental health, and chronic economic hardship, all of which are linked to drug use disorders.”
Treatment for drug addiction in prison systems is rare, as is adequate mental health treatment. However, treatment for this population would likely help reduce drug overdose deaths and improve the quality of life for people who are incarcerated and their families. In the Philadelphia prison system, for example, treatment for inmates is available for opioid addiction, both with methadone and now more recently with buprenorphine (Suboxone). The Philadelphia Department of Prisons also provides cognitive-behavioral therapy. In Florida, Chapter 397 of the Florida statutes – known as the Marchman Act – provides for the involuntary (and voluntary) treatment of individuals with substance abuse problems.
The court systems in South Florida have a robust drug-diversion program, aimed at directing people facing incarceration for drug offenses into treatment instead. North Carolina has studied this issue specifically and found through a model simulation that diverting 10% of drug-abusing offenders out of incarceration into treatment would save $4.8 billion in legal costs for North Carolina counties and state legal systems. Diverting 40% of individuals would close to triple that savings.
There are striking data from programs treating individuals who are leveraged into treatment in order to maintain professional licenses. These such individuals, many of whom are physicians, airline pilots, and nurses, have a rate of sobriety of 90% or greater after 5 years. This data show that
In addition to the potential reduction in morbidity and mortality as well as the financial savings, why is treatment important? Because of societal costs. When parents or family members are put in jail for a drug charge or other charge, they leave behind a community, family, and very often children who are affected economically, emotionally, and socially. Those children in particular have higher risks of depression and PTSD. Diverting an offender into treatment or treating an incarcerated person for drug and mental health problems can change the life of a child or family member, and ultimately can change society.
Dr. Jorandby is chief medical officer of Lakeview Health in Jacksonville, Fla. She trained in addiction psychiatry at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
Poverty, incarceration may drive deaths from drug use
High rates of both incarceration and reduced household income are significantly associated with drug-related deaths in the United States, based a regression analysis of several decades of data.
“More than half a million drug-related deaths have occurred in the USA in the past three and half decades, however, no studies have investigated the association between these deaths and the expansion of the incarcerated population,” wrote Elias Nosrati, PhD, of the University of Oxford (England) and colleagues.
The researchers reviewed previously unavailable data on jail and prison incarceration at the county level from the nonprofit Vera Institute of Justice in New York, as well as mortality data from the U.S. National Vital Statistics System. The analysis was published in the Lancet Public Health.
After adjustment for multiple confounding variables, each standard deviation in admission rates to local jails (an average of 7,018 per 100,000 population) was associated with a significant 1.5% increase in drug-related deaths, and each standard deviation in admission rates to state prisons (an average of 254.6 per 100,000 population) was associated with a significant 2.6% increase in drug-related deaths, reported Dr. Nosrati and colleagues.
“On average, the researchers wrote. In addition, each standard-deviation decrease in median household income was associated with a 12.8% increase in drug-related deaths within counties.
The findings were limited by several factors, including the observational nature of the study, the potential skewing of results because of missing data from some counties, and the inability to examine support for individuals released from jail or prison, the researchers noted.
However, the results suggest that, “when coupled with economic hardship, the operations of the prison and jail systems constitute an upstream determinant of despair, whereby regular exposures to neighborhood violence, unstable social and family relationships, and psychosocial stress trigger destructive behaviours,” they wrote.
In an accompanying comment, James LePage, PhD, wrote that current laws regarding trespassing, loitering, and vagrancy “unfairly criminalize individuals of low economic status and homeless individuals” by increasing their likelihood of interaction with the legal system and thus increasing the incarceration rate in this population.
“Future studies should focus on racial and ethnic biases in arrests and sentencing, and the subsequent effect on drug-related mortality,” wrote Dr. LePage of the VA North Texas Health Care System in Dallas.
Neither the researchers in the main study nor Dr. LePage had financial conflicts to disclose.
SOURCE: Nosrati E et al. Lancet Public Health. 2019 Jul 3;4:e326-33.
High rates of both incarceration and reduced household income are significantly associated with drug-related deaths in the United States, based a regression analysis of several decades of data.
“More than half a million drug-related deaths have occurred in the USA in the past three and half decades, however, no studies have investigated the association between these deaths and the expansion of the incarcerated population,” wrote Elias Nosrati, PhD, of the University of Oxford (England) and colleagues.
The researchers reviewed previously unavailable data on jail and prison incarceration at the county level from the nonprofit Vera Institute of Justice in New York, as well as mortality data from the U.S. National Vital Statistics System. The analysis was published in the Lancet Public Health.
After adjustment for multiple confounding variables, each standard deviation in admission rates to local jails (an average of 7,018 per 100,000 population) was associated with a significant 1.5% increase in drug-related deaths, and each standard deviation in admission rates to state prisons (an average of 254.6 per 100,000 population) was associated with a significant 2.6% increase in drug-related deaths, reported Dr. Nosrati and colleagues.
“On average, the researchers wrote. In addition, each standard-deviation decrease in median household income was associated with a 12.8% increase in drug-related deaths within counties.
The findings were limited by several factors, including the observational nature of the study, the potential skewing of results because of missing data from some counties, and the inability to examine support for individuals released from jail or prison, the researchers noted.
However, the results suggest that, “when coupled with economic hardship, the operations of the prison and jail systems constitute an upstream determinant of despair, whereby regular exposures to neighborhood violence, unstable social and family relationships, and psychosocial stress trigger destructive behaviours,” they wrote.
In an accompanying comment, James LePage, PhD, wrote that current laws regarding trespassing, loitering, and vagrancy “unfairly criminalize individuals of low economic status and homeless individuals” by increasing their likelihood of interaction with the legal system and thus increasing the incarceration rate in this population.
“Future studies should focus on racial and ethnic biases in arrests and sentencing, and the subsequent effect on drug-related mortality,” wrote Dr. LePage of the VA North Texas Health Care System in Dallas.
Neither the researchers in the main study nor Dr. LePage had financial conflicts to disclose.
SOURCE: Nosrati E et al. Lancet Public Health. 2019 Jul 3;4:e326-33.
High rates of both incarceration and reduced household income are significantly associated with drug-related deaths in the United States, based a regression analysis of several decades of data.
“More than half a million drug-related deaths have occurred in the USA in the past three and half decades, however, no studies have investigated the association between these deaths and the expansion of the incarcerated population,” wrote Elias Nosrati, PhD, of the University of Oxford (England) and colleagues.
The researchers reviewed previously unavailable data on jail and prison incarceration at the county level from the nonprofit Vera Institute of Justice in New York, as well as mortality data from the U.S. National Vital Statistics System. The analysis was published in the Lancet Public Health.
After adjustment for multiple confounding variables, each standard deviation in admission rates to local jails (an average of 7,018 per 100,000 population) was associated with a significant 1.5% increase in drug-related deaths, and each standard deviation in admission rates to state prisons (an average of 254.6 per 100,000 population) was associated with a significant 2.6% increase in drug-related deaths, reported Dr. Nosrati and colleagues.
“On average, the researchers wrote. In addition, each standard-deviation decrease in median household income was associated with a 12.8% increase in drug-related deaths within counties.
The findings were limited by several factors, including the observational nature of the study, the potential skewing of results because of missing data from some counties, and the inability to examine support for individuals released from jail or prison, the researchers noted.
However, the results suggest that, “when coupled with economic hardship, the operations of the prison and jail systems constitute an upstream determinant of despair, whereby regular exposures to neighborhood violence, unstable social and family relationships, and psychosocial stress trigger destructive behaviours,” they wrote.
In an accompanying comment, James LePage, PhD, wrote that current laws regarding trespassing, loitering, and vagrancy “unfairly criminalize individuals of low economic status and homeless individuals” by increasing their likelihood of interaction with the legal system and thus increasing the incarceration rate in this population.
“Future studies should focus on racial and ethnic biases in arrests and sentencing, and the subsequent effect on drug-related mortality,” wrote Dr. LePage of the VA North Texas Health Care System in Dallas.
Neither the researchers in the main study nor Dr. LePage had financial conflicts to disclose.
SOURCE: Nosrati E et al. Lancet Public Health. 2019 Jul 3;4:e326-33.
FROM THE LANCET PUBLIC HEALTH
Key clinical point: Reduced household income and increased incarceration are significantly associated with drug-related deaths in the U.S. population.
Major finding: High incarceration rates are associated with an increase in drug-related deaths of more than 50% at the county level.
Study details: The data come from a regression analysis of data from multiple institutions, including the U.S. National Vital Statistics System and the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, as well as incarceration data from the Vera Institute of Justice for 2,640 U.S. counties from 1983 to 2014.
Disclosures: The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Source: Nosrati E et al. Lancet Public Health. 2019 Jul 3;4:e326-33.
Opioid prescriptions: 2019 snapshot
