Addiction Medicine

The opioid crisis has brought added scrutiny to opioid prescribing, particularly to health care providers, whom many blame for the genesis of the opioid overdose epidemic. Family physicians are acutely aware of these complexities: By sheer volume, family physicians prescribe more opioid analgesics than any other subspecialist.¹

Overwhelmed by opioid prescriptions

Because of a complexity of factors (notably, the influence of the US pharmaceutical industry), the quantity of opioid prescriptions has risen substantially—enough so that, in 2010, opioids were prescribed in great enough quantity to medicate every American around the clock for a month.² Among people who began abusing opioids in the 2000s, 75% reported that their first opioid was a prescription drug; this is a shift from prior decades, when heroin was the gateway to opioid addiction.³ As the reality of the size of the opioid problem sunk in, many were hopeful that the epidemic would reverse itself as quickly as it began if the medical community would simply prescribe fewer opioids.

©Stuart Bradford

Since 2010, the opioid overdose fatality rate has risen dramatically, even though prescription opioid overdose mortality has leveled off, or even declined. ² One explanation for this paradox? As availability of prescription opioids declined, people suffering from an underlying opioid use disorder (OUD) turned instead first to heroin, then later to potent fentanyl analogues to fuel their addiction. In most communities, the prevalence of fentanyl analogues—alone or more commonly mixed with other opioids—has driven the staggering rise in opioid-related fatalities in recent years.

No question: Prescription opioids played a critical role in the origins of this epidemic, but just withdrawing prescriptions will not result in marked reduction in the epidemic. This quandary is no more apparent than in primary care, where the considerable risk of continuing opioids—especially at high dosages—must be weighed against the potential risks of discontinuation. Adding to this dilemma are lack of access to treatment for patients with an OUD and the continued stigma and misunderstanding of substance use disorders.

In this article, we describe the challenges of long-term opioid use and review necessary protocols and precautions for maintaining or tapering an opioid regimen in patients who suffer chronic pain.

Managing chronic pain is fraught with complexity

Chronic pain is both real and a disease in its own right. Although definitions of chronic pain vary, pain that lasts > 3 months or past the duration of normal tissue healing is typically considered chronic.⁴ Approximations of prevalence vary, but in 1 study that examined a representative sample, it was estimated that 14.6% of US adults experience chronic pain.⁵

Patients who report symptoms or a history of chronic pain can elicit negative reactions from physicians—stemming from our biases, which can inadvertently provoke emotions on our part.⁶ Unflattering portrayals of patients in the media can further fuel unwarranted biases and prejudices.⁷

Continue to: Preventing, assessing, and treating...

Preventing, assessing, and treating chronic pain can be difficult, at the level of both the individual physician and the larger system of care, even without adding in complications of the opioid epidemic. For racial and ethnic minority groups, women, older people, and people with cognitive impairment or cancer, pain can be underrecognized and go inadequately treated.

Among people who began abusing opioids in the 2000s, 75% said that their first opioid was a prescription drug; in prior decades, heroin was the gateway to opioid addiction.

Chronic pain itself has clinical, psychological, and social consequences and is associated with limitations in activity, work productivity, quality of life, and stigma.⁸ Treatment of chronic pain—with opioids or other modalities—remains an important component of patient-centered primary care. Interestingly, however, many patients struggling through chronic pain report that efforts to curb the opioid epidemic have inadvertently led to lower-quality pain management and, therefore, understandable concern among patients whose chronic pain is well managed with opioid pain medications.^9,10

When is it appropriate to continue opioids for chronic pain?

Apart from the treatment of active cancer, palliative care, and end-of-life care, the appropriate use of opioids for chronic and acute pain has become clouded in recent years. To assist with this problem, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued guidelines in 2016 for primary care physicians who are faced with this clinical dilemma.¹¹ The guidelines (1) address circumstances in which it is safe to consider opioid prescribing and (2) provide ongoing reassessment of indications for chronic opioid prescribing within the context of potential risk to the patient and society. Because appropriate use of opioids has grown murky, nonpharmacotherapeutic management and nonopioid pharmacotherapy are preferred for chronic pain.

The therapeutic window— between safe dosages and those that could lead to respiratory depression or overdose— is narrow for older patients.

Plan ahead. Establish goals of treatment that focus on both pain and function when starting opioid therapy. This will facilitate decision-making when it comes time to continue—or discontinue—opioids down the road. Opioids should be prescribed at the lowest effective dosage; ongoing reassessment of benefit should be made, and particular caution should be exercised, if the daily opioid dosage reaches ≥ 50 morphine milligram equivalents (MME) and especially as the dosage approaches ≥ 90 MME/d. Prescribers should ensure that patients are educated about known risks and the limited evidence of benefit of opioid therapy.

An age-related concern. Special consideration is warranted in older patients, who might have reduced renal function even in the absence of renal disease; this can lead to a reduction in clearance of pain medication. Because of that increased risk of drug accumulation, the therapeutic window—between safe dosages and those that could lead to respiratory depression or overdose—is narrow for these patients.¹¹

Continue to: Use in pregnancy

Use in pregnancy. Treatment with opioid medication in pregnancy warrants special consideration. In general, it’s wise to avoid opioid use in pregnant women because data on long- and short-term safety are limited.¹² In 2015, the US Food and Drug Administration issued a safety announcement that further investigation is needed to determine whether the fetus is at increased risk of a neural tube defect related to opioid exposure during the first trimester.¹³ In women with an OUD, both methadone and buprenorphine are safe to use. Buprenorphine is associated with slightly better outcomes for neonatal abstinence syndrome and length of hospital stay.¹⁴

Ongoing monitoring of risk. Periodically assessing risk factors for opioid-related harm during continuation of opioid treatment is important. Tools such as the Opioid Risk Tool (ORT) or the Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain-Revised, or SOAPP-R, can be used to evaluate the risk of misuse in adults who are prescribed opioids for chronic pain,¹⁵ although the evidence for utilizing these tools is inconclusive.¹¹

Offering naloxone should be considered when factors that increase the risk of opioid overdose are present, such as a history of substance use disorder, a daily opioid dosage > 50 MME, concurrent use of benzodiazepines, and medical comorbidities that increase the risk of overdose (eg, sleep apnea, pulmonary disease, heart failure).¹⁶ Prescribers should review prescription drug monitoring program data, when available, to assess treatment adherence and to obtain a collateral history that might suggest abuse or diversion. Urine drug testing can be a useful adjunct to ongoing therapy—again, to assess treatment adherence and look for evidence of other substance use disorders.

Watchfulness for misuse and OUD. Opioid misuse—the nontherapeutic use of opioids—includes taking opioids in amounts other than prescribed, for indications other than prescribed, and administering by alternative routes other than prescribed (eg, crushing and snorting, rather than ingesting). The presence of opioid misuse does not always signify OUD. However, The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th ed.,¹⁷ defines OUD as out-of-control use; devoting increasing mental and physical resources to obtaining, using, and recovering from substances; and continued use despite adverse consequences.

Behaviors that increase the risk of, and might signal, opioid misuse and OUD include¹⁸

• seeking early refills
• obtaining opioids from the emergency room
• using medications prescribed to others
• using opioids to treat symptoms other than pain, such as anxiety or insomnia
• “doctor-shopping.”

Continue to: Furthermore...

Furthermore, psychiatric comorbidities,¹⁹ a personal or family history of substance use disorder,²⁰ and a preadolescent history of sexual abuse²¹ are associated with a higher risk of a substance use disorder.

If OUD is identified, remain nonjudgmental and acknowledge that addiction is a chronic disease. Assumptions about a patient’s character or morality have no place in the appropriate management of OUD; remain mindful of your own implicit biases.

When is it appropriateto start an opioid taper?

The decision to taper opioids is difficult and can provoke anxiety for both prescriber and patient. Complicating matters is that there is insufficient evidence to evaluate opioid dosage-reduction interventions for patients with chronic noncancer pain.²²

Safety concerns. Even in patients who are taking opioids as prescribed and for whom no red flags have been raised, the long-term safety of high-dosage opioids remains unclear. There is no “safe” dosage of opioids; however, evidence is clear that the risk of death from overdose increases with dosage. Compared with patients taking a dosage anywhere from 1 to 20 MME/d, those taking 50 to 99 MME/d have a 3.7-fold increased risk of overdose; patients taking ≥ 100 MME/d had an 8.9-fold increased risk.²³ Patients for whom concomitant benzodiazepines are prescribed are also at higher risk of overdose and death. In studies of opioid overdose deaths, there was evidence of concurrent benzodiazepine use in 31% to 61% of cases.¹¹

Inadequate analgesia. Given the well-established risk of drug tolerance, the inability to achieve or maintain pain relief or functional improvement can still occur—even when the opioid dosage is escalated reasonably. It might be prudent in that situation to taper opioids while also considering alternative modalities, including ones that were deferred previously.

Continue to: Intolerable adverse effects

Intolerable adverse effects. Adverse effects are common. Constipation has a reported prevalence of 15% to 90% among patients on long-term opioid treatment.²⁴ Short-term, mild constipation is often manageable; long-term opioid use, however, can produce constipation refractory to bowel regimens and, in rare cases, lead to bowel obstruction, perforation, and even death. Other adverse effects include²⁵

• sedation and drowsiness
• impaired memory or concentration
• mood changes
• dry mouth
• abdominal pain and nausea
• sexual dysfunction.

When these effects limit the tolerability of treatment, tapering might be indicated.

How are opioids tapered?

There is no definitive evidence of an optimal rate of taper or frequency of follow-up. Most guidelines suggest tapering opioids at 10% of the dosage each week; patients who have been taking opioids for many years, however, might require a slower taper (eg, a dosage decrease of 5%-20% every 2-4 weeks).¹¹

Psychosocial support and maximizing nonopioid pain management techniques are critical to successful opioid tapering. When tapering is part of a comprehensive pain and rehabilitative plan, patients might find their symptoms alleviated.²⁶ Given the potential risks in patients taking both short- and long-acting opioids, tapering the long-acting opioid should be the initial priority.

Psychiatric comorbidities, a personal or family history of substance use disorder, and a preadolescent history of sexual abuse are associated with a higher risk of a substance use disorder.

A more rapid taper—eg, a 20% reduction each week or even abrupt discontinuation of opioids—might be necessary if diversion is suspected or if there is concern that continued use of the medication presents high risk. In such cases, consultation with an addiction medicine specialist can be helpful—to assess whether medication-assisted therapy for OUD would be appropriate and how to support patients who are having withdrawal symptoms.

Continue to: For all patients...

For all patients, frequent follow-up visits with their primary care clinician, as well as referrals to mental health, physical therapy, and pain or rehabilitation services, can promote a successful taper. It is advised that, before beginning a taper, a treatment plan should be written out with the patient so that expectations are shared by physician and patient for the goals of the taper, the speed of dosage decreases, and the frequency of follow-up after each dosage change. At each follow-up visit, education regarding self-management and individualized recommendations for psychosocial support, mental health services, and substance use disorder services should be updated.

Assessing risk when tapering chronic opioid therapy

The goals of tapering should be to (1) reduce adverse effects of treatment and (2) mitigate short- and long-term risks.

Three short-term risks

Unmasking OUD. Tapering prescribed opioids, or even just discussing tapering, can unmask OUD in some patients. Follow-up visits during the tapering schedule should include frequent screening for OUD. If OUD is diagnosed, we recommend beginning medication-assisted treatment or referring the patient to a substance use treatment center. There is strong evidence of the safety and efficacy of medication-assisted treatment, even with a coexisting chronic pain disorder.²⁷

Withdrawal syndrome. Opioid withdrawal syndrome is characterized by signs and symptoms of sympathetic stimulation, resulting from decreased sympathetic blockade by opioids (TABLE).²⁸ (See “Changes in the locus ceruleus lead to withdrawal.”²⁹) Symptoms start 2 to 3 half-lives after the last dose of opioid. Oxycodone, for example, has a half-life of 3 to 4 hours; withdrawal symptoms should therefore be anticipated in 6 to 12 hours. Because mixing opioids is commonplace, it can be difficult to predict exactly when withdrawal symptoms will begin. Patients are often most helpful in predicting the onset and severity of withdrawal symptoms.

Withdrawal can be measured using any of a number of validated tools, including

• the Subjective Opiate Withdrawal Scale, or SOWS³⁰ (FIGURE 1), which utilizes a patient self-report
• the Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale, or COWS³¹ (FIGURE 2), which relies on assessment made by the physician.

Continue to: Although withdrawal...

Although withdrawal is generally not considered life-threatening in patients without significant comorbidities, do not underestimate the severity of withdrawal symptoms. Often, the desire to avoid these intense symptoms drives patients with OUD to continue to overuse.

Increased pain. Patients might fear that pain will become worse if opioids are tapered. Although it is important to acknowledge this fear, studies of patients undergoing a long-term opioid taper report improvements in function without loss of adequate pain control; some even report that pain control improves.³²

Three long-term risks

Relapse. The most dangerous risk of tapering opioids is use of illicit opioids, a danger made worse by the increasing presence of highly lethal synthetic fentanyl analogues in the community. Risk factors for relapse following a full taper include the presence of depressive symptoms at initiation of tapering and higher pain scores at initiation and conclusion of the taper.³³ Having low pain at the end of an opioid taper, on the other hand, is predictive of long-term abstinence from opioids.³²

Declining function. As is the case while prescribing opioids for pain, maintenance of function remains a priority when tapering opioids. Function can be difficult to assess, given the many variables that can influence an individual’s function. Psychosocial factors, such as coping strategies and mood, strongly influence function; so do psychiatric morbidities, which are more prevalent in patients with chronic pain and disability, compared with the general population.³⁴

Medicolegal matters. Although difficult to characterize, medicolegal risk is an inevitable consideration when tapering opioids:

• In a study of closed malpractice claims involving all medical specialties, narcotic pain medications were the most common drug class involved, representing 1% of claims.³⁵
• In a study of closed malpractice claims involving pain medicine specialists, 3% were related to medication management. Most claims arose following death from opioid overdose.³⁶

Continue to: What else is needed in this area of practice?

 

 

What else is needed in this area of practice?

Increasingly, family physicians face the inherent tension of wanting to provide patient-centered, compassionate care for patients in pain while being mindful of opioid prescription stewardship. To support their work and help allay this tension, clinical research on this topic in the future should focus on

• new options for nonopioid pharmacotherapy for pain
• best practices for using opioids in noncancer chronic pain.

In addition, health care systems can help—by providing insurance coverage of nonpharmacotherapeutic options for treating pain.

CORRESPONDENCE
Michael Mendoza, MD, MPH, MS, FAAFP, 111 Westfall Road, Room 952, Rochester, NY 14620; MichaelMendoza@ monroecounty.gov

The opioid crisis has brought added scrutiny to opioid prescribing, particularly to health care providers, whom many blame for the genesis of the opioid overdose epidemic. Family physicians are acutely aware of these complexities: By sheer volume, family physicians prescribe more opioid analgesics than any other subspecialist.¹

Overwhelmed by opioid prescriptions

Because of a complexity of factors (notably, the influence of the US pharmaceutical industry), the quantity of opioid prescriptions has risen substantially—enough so that, in 2010, opioids were prescribed in great enough quantity to medicate every American around the clock for a month.² Among people who began abusing opioids in the 2000s, 75% reported that their first opioid was a prescription drug; this is a shift from prior decades, when heroin was the gateway to opioid addiction.³ As the reality of the size of the opioid problem sunk in, many were hopeful that the epidemic would reverse itself as quickly as it began if the medical community would simply prescribe fewer opioids.

©Stuart Bradford

Since 2010, the opioid overdose fatality rate has risen dramatically, even though prescription opioid overdose mortality has leveled off, or even declined. ² One explanation for this paradox? As availability of prescription opioids declined, people suffering from an underlying opioid use disorder (OUD) turned instead first to heroin, then later to potent fentanyl analogues to fuel their addiction. In most communities, the prevalence of fentanyl analogues—alone or more commonly mixed with other opioids—has driven the staggering rise in opioid-related fatalities in recent years.

No question: Prescription opioids played a critical role in the origins of this epidemic, but just withdrawing prescriptions will not result in marked reduction in the epidemic. This quandary is no more apparent than in primary care, where the considerable risk of continuing opioids—especially at high dosages—must be weighed against the potential risks of discontinuation. Adding to this dilemma are lack of access to treatment for patients with an OUD and the continued stigma and misunderstanding of substance use disorders.

In this article, we describe the challenges of long-term opioid use and review necessary protocols and precautions for maintaining or tapering an opioid regimen in patients who suffer chronic pain.

Managing chronic pain is fraught with complexity

Chronic pain is both real and a disease in its own right. Although definitions of chronic pain vary, pain that lasts > 3 months or past the duration of normal tissue healing is typically considered chronic.⁴ Approximations of prevalence vary, but in 1 study that examined a representative sample, it was estimated that 14.6% of US adults experience chronic pain.⁵

Patients who report symptoms or a history of chronic pain can elicit negative reactions from physicians—stemming from our biases, which can inadvertently provoke emotions on our part.⁶ Unflattering portrayals of patients in the media can further fuel unwarranted biases and prejudices.⁷

Continue to: Preventing, assessing, and treating...

Preventing, assessing, and treating chronic pain can be difficult, at the level of both the individual physician and the larger system of care, even without adding in complications of the opioid epidemic. For racial and ethnic minority groups, women, older people, and people with cognitive impairment or cancer, pain can be underrecognized and go inadequately treated.

Among people who began abusing opioids in the 2000s, 75% said that their first opioid was a prescription drug; in prior decades, heroin was the gateway to opioid addiction.

Chronic pain itself has clinical, psychological, and social consequences and is associated with limitations in activity, work productivity, quality of life, and stigma.⁸ Treatment of chronic pain—with opioids or other modalities—remains an important component of patient-centered primary care. Interestingly, however, many patients struggling through chronic pain report that efforts to curb the opioid epidemic have inadvertently led to lower-quality pain management and, therefore, understandable concern among patients whose chronic pain is well managed with opioid pain medications.^9,10

When is it appropriate to continue opioids for chronic pain?

Apart from the treatment of active cancer, palliative care, and end-of-life care, the appropriate use of opioids for chronic and acute pain has become clouded in recent years. To assist with this problem, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued guidelines in 2016 for primary care physicians who are faced with this clinical dilemma.¹¹ The guidelines (1) address circumstances in which it is safe to consider opioid prescribing and (2) provide ongoing reassessment of indications for chronic opioid prescribing within the context of potential risk to the patient and society. Because appropriate use of opioids has grown murky, nonpharmacotherapeutic management and nonopioid pharmacotherapy are preferred for chronic pain.

The therapeutic window— between safe dosages and those that could lead to respiratory depression or overdose— is narrow for older patients.

Plan ahead. Establish goals of treatment that focus on both pain and function when starting opioid therapy. This will facilitate decision-making when it comes time to continue—or discontinue—opioids down the road. Opioids should be prescribed at the lowest effective dosage; ongoing reassessment of benefit should be made, and particular caution should be exercised, if the daily opioid dosage reaches ≥ 50 morphine milligram equivalents (MME) and especially as the dosage approaches ≥ 90 MME/d. Prescribers should ensure that patients are educated about known risks and the limited evidence of benefit of opioid therapy.

An age-related concern. Special consideration is warranted in older patients, who might have reduced renal function even in the absence of renal disease; this can lead to a reduction in clearance of pain medication. Because of that increased risk of drug accumulation, the therapeutic window—between safe dosages and those that could lead to respiratory depression or overdose—is narrow for these patients.¹¹

Continue to: Use in pregnancy

Use in pregnancy. Treatment with opioid medication in pregnancy warrants special consideration. In general, it’s wise to avoid opioid use in pregnant women because data on long- and short-term safety are limited.¹² In 2015, the US Food and Drug Administration issued a safety announcement that further investigation is needed to determine whether the fetus is at increased risk of a neural tube defect related to opioid exposure during the first trimester.¹³ In women with an OUD, both methadone and buprenorphine are safe to use. Buprenorphine is associated with slightly better outcomes for neonatal abstinence syndrome and length of hospital stay.¹⁴

Ongoing monitoring of risk. Periodically assessing risk factors for opioid-related harm during continuation of opioid treatment is important. Tools such as the Opioid Risk Tool (ORT) or the Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain-Revised, or SOAPP-R, can be used to evaluate the risk of misuse in adults who are prescribed opioids for chronic pain,¹⁵ although the evidence for utilizing these tools is inconclusive.¹¹

Offering naloxone should be considered when factors that increase the risk of opioid overdose are present, such as a history of substance use disorder, a daily opioid dosage > 50 MME, concurrent use of benzodiazepines, and medical comorbidities that increase the risk of overdose (eg, sleep apnea, pulmonary disease, heart failure).¹⁶ Prescribers should review prescription drug monitoring program data, when available, to assess treatment adherence and to obtain a collateral history that might suggest abuse or diversion. Urine drug testing can be a useful adjunct to ongoing therapy—again, to assess treatment adherence and look for evidence of other substance use disorders.

Watchfulness for misuse and OUD. Opioid misuse—the nontherapeutic use of opioids—includes taking opioids in amounts other than prescribed, for indications other than prescribed, and administering by alternative routes other than prescribed (eg, crushing and snorting, rather than ingesting). The presence of opioid misuse does not always signify OUD. However, The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th ed.,¹⁷ defines OUD as out-of-control use; devoting increasing mental and physical resources to obtaining, using, and recovering from substances; and continued use despite adverse consequences.

Behaviors that increase the risk of, and might signal, opioid misuse and OUD include¹⁸

• seeking early refills
• obtaining opioids from the emergency room
• using medications prescribed to others
• using opioids to treat symptoms other than pain, such as anxiety or insomnia
• “doctor-shopping.”

Continue to: Furthermore...

Furthermore, psychiatric comorbidities,¹⁹ a personal or family history of substance use disorder,²⁰ and a preadolescent history of sexual abuse²¹ are associated with a higher risk of a substance use disorder.

If OUD is identified, remain nonjudgmental and acknowledge that addiction is a chronic disease. Assumptions about a patient’s character or morality have no place in the appropriate management of OUD; remain mindful of your own implicit biases.

When is it appropriateto start an opioid taper?

The decision to taper opioids is difficult and can provoke anxiety for both prescriber and patient. Complicating matters is that there is insufficient evidence to evaluate opioid dosage-reduction interventions for patients with chronic noncancer pain.²²

Safety concerns. Even in patients who are taking opioids as prescribed and for whom no red flags have been raised, the long-term safety of high-dosage opioids remains unclear. There is no “safe” dosage of opioids; however, evidence is clear that the risk of death from overdose increases with dosage. Compared with patients taking a dosage anywhere from 1 to 20 MME/d, those taking 50 to 99 MME/d have a 3.7-fold increased risk of overdose; patients taking ≥ 100 MME/d had an 8.9-fold increased risk.²³ Patients for whom concomitant benzodiazepines are prescribed are also at higher risk of overdose and death. In studies of opioid overdose deaths, there was evidence of concurrent benzodiazepine use in 31% to 61% of cases.¹¹

Inadequate analgesia. Given the well-established risk of drug tolerance, the inability to achieve or maintain pain relief or functional improvement can still occur—even when the opioid dosage is escalated reasonably. It might be prudent in that situation to taper opioids while also considering alternative modalities, including ones that were deferred previously.

Continue to: Intolerable adverse effects

Intolerable adverse effects. Adverse effects are common. Constipation has a reported prevalence of 15% to 90% among patients on long-term opioid treatment.²⁴ Short-term, mild constipation is often manageable; long-term opioid use, however, can produce constipation refractory to bowel regimens and, in rare cases, lead to bowel obstruction, perforation, and even death. Other adverse effects include²⁵

• sedation and drowsiness
• impaired memory or concentration
• mood changes
• dry mouth
• abdominal pain and nausea
• sexual dysfunction.

When these effects limit the tolerability of treatment, tapering might be indicated.

How are opioids tapered?

There is no definitive evidence of an optimal rate of taper or frequency of follow-up. Most guidelines suggest tapering opioids at 10% of the dosage each week; patients who have been taking opioids for many years, however, might require a slower taper (eg, a dosage decrease of 5%-20% every 2-4 weeks).¹¹

Psychosocial support and maximizing nonopioid pain management techniques are critical to successful opioid tapering. When tapering is part of a comprehensive pain and rehabilitative plan, patients might find their symptoms alleviated.²⁶ Given the potential risks in patients taking both short- and long-acting opioids, tapering the long-acting opioid should be the initial priority.

Psychiatric comorbidities, a personal or family history of substance use disorder, and a preadolescent history of sexual abuse are associated with a higher risk of a substance use disorder.

A more rapid taper—eg, a 20% reduction each week or even abrupt discontinuation of opioids—might be necessary if diversion is suspected or if there is concern that continued use of the medication presents high risk. In such cases, consultation with an addiction medicine specialist can be helpful—to assess whether medication-assisted therapy for OUD would be appropriate and how to support patients who are having withdrawal symptoms.

Continue to: For all patients...

For all patients, frequent follow-up visits with their primary care clinician, as well as referrals to mental health, physical therapy, and pain or rehabilitation services, can promote a successful taper. It is advised that, before beginning a taper, a treatment plan should be written out with the patient so that expectations are shared by physician and patient for the goals of the taper, the speed of dosage decreases, and the frequency of follow-up after each dosage change. At each follow-up visit, education regarding self-management and individualized recommendations for psychosocial support, mental health services, and substance use disorder services should be updated.

Assessing risk when tapering chronic opioid therapy

The goals of tapering should be to (1) reduce adverse effects of treatment and (2) mitigate short- and long-term risks.

Three short-term risks

Unmasking OUD. Tapering prescribed opioids, or even just discussing tapering, can unmask OUD in some patients. Follow-up visits during the tapering schedule should include frequent screening for OUD. If OUD is diagnosed, we recommend beginning medication-assisted treatment or referring the patient to a substance use treatment center. There is strong evidence of the safety and efficacy of medication-assisted treatment, even with a coexisting chronic pain disorder.²⁷

Withdrawal syndrome. Opioid withdrawal syndrome is characterized by signs and symptoms of sympathetic stimulation, resulting from decreased sympathetic blockade by opioids (TABLE).²⁸ (See “Changes in the locus ceruleus lead to withdrawal.”²⁹) Symptoms start 2 to 3 half-lives after the last dose of opioid. Oxycodone, for example, has a half-life of 3 to 4 hours; withdrawal symptoms should therefore be anticipated in 6 to 12 hours. Because mixing opioids is commonplace, it can be difficult to predict exactly when withdrawal symptoms will begin. Patients are often most helpful in predicting the onset and severity of withdrawal symptoms.

Withdrawal can be measured using any of a number of validated tools, including

• the Subjective Opiate Withdrawal Scale, or SOWS³⁰ (FIGURE 1), which utilizes a patient self-report
• the Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale, or COWS³¹ (FIGURE 2), which relies on assessment made by the physician.

Continue to: Although withdrawal...

Although withdrawal is generally not considered life-threatening in patients without significant comorbidities, do not underestimate the severity of withdrawal symptoms. Often, the desire to avoid these intense symptoms drives patients with OUD to continue to overuse.

Increased pain. Patients might fear that pain will become worse if opioids are tapered. Although it is important to acknowledge this fear, studies of patients undergoing a long-term opioid taper report improvements in function without loss of adequate pain control; some even report that pain control improves.³²

Three long-term risks

Relapse. The most dangerous risk of tapering opioids is use of illicit opioids, a danger made worse by the increasing presence of highly lethal synthetic fentanyl analogues in the community. Risk factors for relapse following a full taper include the presence of depressive symptoms at initiation of tapering and higher pain scores at initiation and conclusion of the taper.³³ Having low pain at the end of an opioid taper, on the other hand, is predictive of long-term abstinence from opioids.³²

Declining function. As is the case while prescribing opioids for pain, maintenance of function remains a priority when tapering opioids. Function can be difficult to assess, given the many variables that can influence an individual’s function. Psychosocial factors, such as coping strategies and mood, strongly influence function; so do psychiatric morbidities, which are more prevalent in patients with chronic pain and disability, compared with the general population.³⁴

Medicolegal matters. Although difficult to characterize, medicolegal risk is an inevitable consideration when tapering opioids:

• In a study of closed malpractice claims involving all medical specialties, narcotic pain medications were the most common drug class involved, representing 1% of claims.³⁵
• In a study of closed malpractice claims involving pain medicine specialists, 3% were related to medication management. Most claims arose following death from opioid overdose.³⁶

Continue to: What else is needed in this area of practice?

 

 

What else is needed in this area of practice?

Increasingly, family physicians face the inherent tension of wanting to provide patient-centered, compassionate care for patients in pain while being mindful of opioid prescription stewardship. To support their work and help allay this tension, clinical research on this topic in the future should focus on

• new options for nonopioid pharmacotherapy for pain
• best practices for using opioids in noncancer chronic pain.

In addition, health care systems can help—by providing insurance coverage of nonpharmacotherapeutic options for treating pain.

CORRESPONDENCE
Michael Mendoza, MD, MPH, MS, FAAFP, 111 Westfall Road, Room 952, Rochester, NY 14620; MichaelMendoza@ monroecounty.gov

The opioid crisis has brought added scrutiny to opioid prescribing, particularly to health care providers, whom many blame for the genesis of the opioid overdose epidemic. Family physicians are acutely aware of these complexities: By sheer volume, family physicians prescribe more opioid analgesics than any other subspecialist.¹

Overwhelmed by opioid prescriptions

Because of a complexity of factors (notably, the influence of the US pharmaceutical industry), the quantity of opioid prescriptions has risen substantially—enough so that, in 2010, opioids were prescribed in great enough quantity to medicate every American around the clock for a month.² Among people who began abusing opioids in the 2000s, 75% reported that their first opioid was a prescription drug; this is a shift from prior decades, when heroin was the gateway to opioid addiction.³ As the reality of the size of the opioid problem sunk in, many were hopeful that the epidemic would reverse itself as quickly as it began if the medical community would simply prescribe fewer opioids.

©Stuart Bradford

Since 2010, the opioid overdose fatality rate has risen dramatically, even though prescription opioid overdose mortality has leveled off, or even declined. ² One explanation for this paradox? As availability of prescription opioids declined, people suffering from an underlying opioid use disorder (OUD) turned instead first to heroin, then later to potent fentanyl analogues to fuel their addiction. In most communities, the prevalence of fentanyl analogues—alone or more commonly mixed with other opioids—has driven the staggering rise in opioid-related fatalities in recent years.

No question: Prescription opioids played a critical role in the origins of this epidemic, but just withdrawing prescriptions will not result in marked reduction in the epidemic. This quandary is no more apparent than in primary care, where the considerable risk of continuing opioids—especially at high dosages—must be weighed against the potential risks of discontinuation. Adding to this dilemma are lack of access to treatment for patients with an OUD and the continued stigma and misunderstanding of substance use disorders.

In this article, we describe the challenges of long-term opioid use and review necessary protocols and precautions for maintaining or tapering an opioid regimen in patients who suffer chronic pain.

Managing chronic pain is fraught with complexity

Chronic pain is both real and a disease in its own right. Although definitions of chronic pain vary, pain that lasts > 3 months or past the duration of normal tissue healing is typically considered chronic.⁴ Approximations of prevalence vary, but in 1 study that examined a representative sample, it was estimated that 14.6% of US adults experience chronic pain.⁵

Patients who report symptoms or a history of chronic pain can elicit negative reactions from physicians—stemming from our biases, which can inadvertently provoke emotions on our part.⁶ Unflattering portrayals of patients in the media can further fuel unwarranted biases and prejudices.⁷

Continue to: Preventing, assessing, and treating...

Preventing, assessing, and treating chronic pain can be difficult, at the level of both the individual physician and the larger system of care, even without adding in complications of the opioid epidemic. For racial and ethnic minority groups, women, older people, and people with cognitive impairment or cancer, pain can be underrecognized and go inadequately treated.

Among people who began abusing opioids in the 2000s, 75% said that their first opioid was a prescription drug; in prior decades, heroin was the gateway to opioid addiction.

Chronic pain itself has clinical, psychological, and social consequences and is associated with limitations in activity, work productivity, quality of life, and stigma.⁸ Treatment of chronic pain—with opioids or other modalities—remains an important component of patient-centered primary care. Interestingly, however, many patients struggling through chronic pain report that efforts to curb the opioid epidemic have inadvertently led to lower-quality pain management and, therefore, understandable concern among patients whose chronic pain is well managed with opioid pain medications.^9,10

When is it appropriate to continue opioids for chronic pain?

Apart from the treatment of active cancer, palliative care, and end-of-life care, the appropriate use of opioids for chronic and acute pain has become clouded in recent years. To assist with this problem, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued guidelines in 2016 for primary care physicians who are faced with this clinical dilemma.¹¹ The guidelines (1) address circumstances in which it is safe to consider opioid prescribing and (2) provide ongoing reassessment of indications for chronic opioid prescribing within the context of potential risk to the patient and society. Because appropriate use of opioids has grown murky, nonpharmacotherapeutic management and nonopioid pharmacotherapy are preferred for chronic pain.

The therapeutic window— between safe dosages and those that could lead to respiratory depression or overdose— is narrow for older patients.

Plan ahead. Establish goals of treatment that focus on both pain and function when starting opioid therapy. This will facilitate decision-making when it comes time to continue—or discontinue—opioids down the road. Opioids should be prescribed at the lowest effective dosage; ongoing reassessment of benefit should be made, and particular caution should be exercised, if the daily opioid dosage reaches ≥ 50 morphine milligram equivalents (MME) and especially as the dosage approaches ≥ 90 MME/d. Prescribers should ensure that patients are educated about known risks and the limited evidence of benefit of opioid therapy.

An age-related concern. Special consideration is warranted in older patients, who might have reduced renal function even in the absence of renal disease; this can lead to a reduction in clearance of pain medication. Because of that increased risk of drug accumulation, the therapeutic window—between safe dosages and those that could lead to respiratory depression or overdose—is narrow for these patients.¹¹

Continue to: Use in pregnancy

Use in pregnancy. Treatment with opioid medication in pregnancy warrants special consideration. In general, it’s wise to avoid opioid use in pregnant women because data on long- and short-term safety are limited.¹² In 2015, the US Food and Drug Administration issued a safety announcement that further investigation is needed to determine whether the fetus is at increased risk of a neural tube defect related to opioid exposure during the first trimester.¹³ In women with an OUD, both methadone and buprenorphine are safe to use. Buprenorphine is associated with slightly better outcomes for neonatal abstinence syndrome and length of hospital stay.¹⁴

Ongoing monitoring of risk. Periodically assessing risk factors for opioid-related harm during continuation of opioid treatment is important. Tools such as the Opioid Risk Tool (ORT) or the Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain-Revised, or SOAPP-R, can be used to evaluate the risk of misuse in adults who are prescribed opioids for chronic pain,¹⁵ although the evidence for utilizing these tools is inconclusive.¹¹

Offering naloxone should be considered when factors that increase the risk of opioid overdose are present, such as a history of substance use disorder, a daily opioid dosage > 50 MME, concurrent use of benzodiazepines, and medical comorbidities that increase the risk of overdose (eg, sleep apnea, pulmonary disease, heart failure).¹⁶ Prescribers should review prescription drug monitoring program data, when available, to assess treatment adherence and to obtain a collateral history that might suggest abuse or diversion. Urine drug testing can be a useful adjunct to ongoing therapy—again, to assess treatment adherence and look for evidence of other substance use disorders.

Watchfulness for misuse and OUD. Opioid misuse—the nontherapeutic use of opioids—includes taking opioids in amounts other than prescribed, for indications other than prescribed, and administering by alternative routes other than prescribed (eg, crushing and snorting, rather than ingesting). The presence of opioid misuse does not always signify OUD. However, The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th ed.,¹⁷ defines OUD as out-of-control use; devoting increasing mental and physical resources to obtaining, using, and recovering from substances; and continued use despite adverse consequences.

Behaviors that increase the risk of, and might signal, opioid misuse and OUD include¹⁸

• seeking early refills
• obtaining opioids from the emergency room
• using medications prescribed to others
• using opioids to treat symptoms other than pain, such as anxiety or insomnia
• “doctor-shopping.”

Continue to: Furthermore...

Furthermore, psychiatric comorbidities,¹⁹ a personal or family history of substance use disorder,²⁰ and a preadolescent history of sexual abuse²¹ are associated with a higher risk of a substance use disorder.

If OUD is identified, remain nonjudgmental and acknowledge that addiction is a chronic disease. Assumptions about a patient’s character or morality have no place in the appropriate management of OUD; remain mindful of your own implicit biases.

When is it appropriateto start an opioid taper?

The decision to taper opioids is difficult and can provoke anxiety for both prescriber and patient. Complicating matters is that there is insufficient evidence to evaluate opioid dosage-reduction interventions for patients with chronic noncancer pain.²²

Safety concerns. Even in patients who are taking opioids as prescribed and for whom no red flags have been raised, the long-term safety of high-dosage opioids remains unclear. There is no “safe” dosage of opioids; however, evidence is clear that the risk of death from overdose increases with dosage. Compared with patients taking a dosage anywhere from 1 to 20 MME/d, those taking 50 to 99 MME/d have a 3.7-fold increased risk of overdose; patients taking ≥ 100 MME/d had an 8.9-fold increased risk.²³ Patients for whom concomitant benzodiazepines are prescribed are also at higher risk of overdose and death. In studies of opioid overdose deaths, there was evidence of concurrent benzodiazepine use in 31% to 61% of cases.¹¹

Inadequate analgesia. Given the well-established risk of drug tolerance, the inability to achieve or maintain pain relief or functional improvement can still occur—even when the opioid dosage is escalated reasonably. It might be prudent in that situation to taper opioids while also considering alternative modalities, including ones that were deferred previously.

Continue to: Intolerable adverse effects

Intolerable adverse effects. Adverse effects are common. Constipation has a reported prevalence of 15% to 90% among patients on long-term opioid treatment.²⁴ Short-term, mild constipation is often manageable; long-term opioid use, however, can produce constipation refractory to bowel regimens and, in rare cases, lead to bowel obstruction, perforation, and even death. Other adverse effects include²⁵

• sedation and drowsiness
• impaired memory or concentration
• mood changes
• dry mouth
• abdominal pain and nausea
• sexual dysfunction.

When these effects limit the tolerability of treatment, tapering might be indicated.

How are opioids tapered?

There is no definitive evidence of an optimal rate of taper or frequency of follow-up. Most guidelines suggest tapering opioids at 10% of the dosage each week; patients who have been taking opioids for many years, however, might require a slower taper (eg, a dosage decrease of 5%-20% every 2-4 weeks).¹¹

Psychosocial support and maximizing nonopioid pain management techniques are critical to successful opioid tapering. When tapering is part of a comprehensive pain and rehabilitative plan, patients might find their symptoms alleviated.²⁶ Given the potential risks in patients taking both short- and long-acting opioids, tapering the long-acting opioid should be the initial priority.

Psychiatric comorbidities, a personal or family history of substance use disorder, and a preadolescent history of sexual abuse are associated with a higher risk of a substance use disorder.

A more rapid taper—eg, a 20% reduction each week or even abrupt discontinuation of opioids—might be necessary if diversion is suspected or if there is concern that continued use of the medication presents high risk. In such cases, consultation with an addiction medicine specialist can be helpful—to assess whether medication-assisted therapy for OUD would be appropriate and how to support patients who are having withdrawal symptoms.

Continue to: For all patients...

For all patients, frequent follow-up visits with their primary care clinician, as well as referrals to mental health, physical therapy, and pain or rehabilitation services, can promote a successful taper. It is advised that, before beginning a taper, a treatment plan should be written out with the patient so that expectations are shared by physician and patient for the goals of the taper, the speed of dosage decreases, and the frequency of follow-up after each dosage change. At each follow-up visit, education regarding self-management and individualized recommendations for psychosocial support, mental health services, and substance use disorder services should be updated.

Assessing risk when tapering chronic opioid therapy

The goals of tapering should be to (1) reduce adverse effects of treatment and (2) mitigate short- and long-term risks.

Three short-term risks

Unmasking OUD. Tapering prescribed opioids, or even just discussing tapering, can unmask OUD in some patients. Follow-up visits during the tapering schedule should include frequent screening for OUD. If OUD is diagnosed, we recommend beginning medication-assisted treatment or referring the patient to a substance use treatment center. There is strong evidence of the safety and efficacy of medication-assisted treatment, even with a coexisting chronic pain disorder.²⁷

Withdrawal syndrome. Opioid withdrawal syndrome is characterized by signs and symptoms of sympathetic stimulation, resulting from decreased sympathetic blockade by opioids (TABLE).²⁸ (See “Changes in the locus ceruleus lead to withdrawal.”²⁹) Symptoms start 2 to 3 half-lives after the last dose of opioid. Oxycodone, for example, has a half-life of 3 to 4 hours; withdrawal symptoms should therefore be anticipated in 6 to 12 hours. Because mixing opioids is commonplace, it can be difficult to predict exactly when withdrawal symptoms will begin. Patients are often most helpful in predicting the onset and severity of withdrawal symptoms.

Withdrawal can be measured using any of a number of validated tools, including

• the Subjective Opiate Withdrawal Scale, or SOWS³⁰ (FIGURE 1), which utilizes a patient self-report
• the Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale, or COWS³¹ (FIGURE 2), which relies on assessment made by the physician.

Continue to: Although withdrawal...

Although withdrawal is generally not considered life-threatening in patients without significant comorbidities, do not underestimate the severity of withdrawal symptoms. Often, the desire to avoid these intense symptoms drives patients with OUD to continue to overuse.

Increased pain. Patients might fear that pain will become worse if opioids are tapered. Although it is important to acknowledge this fear, studies of patients undergoing a long-term opioid taper report improvements in function without loss of adequate pain control; some even report that pain control improves.³²

Three long-term risks

Relapse. The most dangerous risk of tapering opioids is use of illicit opioids, a danger made worse by the increasing presence of highly lethal synthetic fentanyl analogues in the community. Risk factors for relapse following a full taper include the presence of depressive symptoms at initiation of tapering and higher pain scores at initiation and conclusion of the taper.³³ Having low pain at the end of an opioid taper, on the other hand, is predictive of long-term abstinence from opioids.³²

Declining function. As is the case while prescribing opioids for pain, maintenance of function remains a priority when tapering opioids. Function can be difficult to assess, given the many variables that can influence an individual’s function. Psychosocial factors, such as coping strategies and mood, strongly influence function; so do psychiatric morbidities, which are more prevalent in patients with chronic pain and disability, compared with the general population.³⁴

Medicolegal matters. Although difficult to characterize, medicolegal risk is an inevitable consideration when tapering opioids:

• In a study of closed malpractice claims involving all medical specialties, narcotic pain medications were the most common drug class involved, representing 1% of claims.³⁵
• In a study of closed malpractice claims involving pain medicine specialists, 3% were related to medication management. Most claims arose following death from opioid overdose.³⁶

Continue to: What else is needed in this area of practice?

 

 

What else is needed in this area of practice?

Increasingly, family physicians face the inherent tension of wanting to provide patient-centered, compassionate care for patients in pain while being mindful of opioid prescription stewardship. To support their work and help allay this tension, clinical research on this topic in the future should focus on

• new options for nonopioid pharmacotherapy for pain
• best practices for using opioids in noncancer chronic pain.

In addition, health care systems can help—by providing insurance coverage of nonpharmacotherapeutic options for treating pain.

CORRESPONDENCE
Michael Mendoza, MD, MPH, MS, FAAFP, 111 Westfall Road, Room 952, Rochester, NY 14620; MichaelMendoza@ monroecounty.gov

Reference

1. US Preventive Services Task Force. Draft Evidence Review for Prevention and Cessation of Tobacco Use in Children and Adolescents: Primary Care Interventions. https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/draft-evidence-review/tobacco-and-nicotine-use-prevention-in-children-and-adolescents-primary-care-interventions. Accessed July 8, 2019.

Reference

1. US Preventive Services Task Force. Draft Evidence Review for Prevention and Cessation of Tobacco Use in Children and Adolescents: Primary Care Interventions. https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/draft-evidence-review/tobacco-and-nicotine-use-prevention-in-children-and-adolescents-primary-care-interventions. Accessed July 8, 2019.

Reference

1. US Preventive Services Task Force. Draft Evidence Review for Prevention and Cessation of Tobacco Use in Children and Adolescents: Primary Care Interventions. https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/draft-evidence-review/tobacco-and-nicotine-use-prevention-in-children-and-adolescents-primary-care-interventions. Accessed July 8, 2019.

In 2016, two researchers published a meta-analysis on gray matter abnormalities in youth who had conduct problems.

The study by Jack C. Rogers, PhD, and Stephane A. De Brito, PhD, found 13 well-done studies that included 394 youth with conduct problems and 390 typically developing youth. Compared with the typically developing youth, the conduct-disordered youth had decreased gray matter volume (JAMA Psychiatry. 2016 Jan;73[1]:64-72).

As I knew one of the researchers in one of the studies that made the cut, I called him up and asked whether their research had controlled for fetal alcohol exposure. They had not. I found this very curious because my experience is that youth who have been labeled with conduct disorder often have histories of prenatal fetal alcohol exposure. In addition, my understanding is that youth who have been exposed to prenatal alcohol often have symptoms of conduct disorder. Furthermore, research has shown that such youth have smaller brains (Dev Med Child Neurol. 2001 Mar;43[3]:148-54). I wondered whether the youth studied in that trial had been exposed to alcohol prenatally.

More recently, this problem has resurfaced. An article by Antonia N. Kaczkurkin, PhD, and associates about a large sample of youth was nicely done. But again, the variable of fetal alcohol exposure was not considered. The study was an elegant one that provides a strong rationale for consideration of a “psychopathology factor” in human life (Am J Psychiatry. 2019 Jun 24. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2019.1807035). It shored up that argument by doing neuroimaging studies on a reasonably large sample of youth and showed that reduced cortical thickness (gray matter volume) was associated with overall psychopathology. With the exception of failing to consider the variable of fetal alcohol exposure, the study is a valuable addition to our understanding of what might be going on with psychiatric disorders.

Unfortunately – while hating to sound like a broken record – I noticed that there was no consideration of fetal alcohol exposure as a cause for the findings of the study. It does not seem like a large leap to hypothesize some of these brain imaging studies that find smaller brain components associated with psychopathology and conduct disorder to be a dynamic of fetal alcohol exposure.

It seems to me that we made a huge mistake in public health in asking women only whether they were drinking while they were pregnant because it was the wrong question. The right question is – “When did you realize you were pregnant, and were you doing any social drinking before you knew you were pregnant?”

Without understanding the etiology of the smaller brains in patients with conduct disorder or psychopathology, we are missing a golden opportunity to prevent such problems. The former editor of the American Journal of Psychiatry – Robert A. Freedman, MD – suggests that by giving phosphatidyl choline to pregnant women, such problems could be prevented.

Dr. Bell is a staff psychiatrist at Jackson Park Hospital’s Medical/Surgical-Psychiatry Inpatient Unit in Chicago, clinical psychiatrist emeritus in the department of psychiatry at the University of Illinois at Chicago, former president/CEO of Community Mental Health Council, and former director of the Institute for Juvenile Research (birthplace of child psychiatry), also in Chicago. In 2019, he was awarded the Adolph Meyer Award by the American Psychiatric Association for lifetime achievement in psychiatric research.

In 2016, two researchers published a meta-analysis on gray matter abnormalities in youth who had conduct problems.

The study by Jack C. Rogers, PhD, and Stephane A. De Brito, PhD, found 13 well-done studies that included 394 youth with conduct problems and 390 typically developing youth. Compared with the typically developing youth, the conduct-disordered youth had decreased gray matter volume (JAMA Psychiatry. 2016 Jan;73[1]:64-72).

As I knew one of the researchers in one of the studies that made the cut, I called him up and asked whether their research had controlled for fetal alcohol exposure. They had not. I found this very curious because my experience is that youth who have been labeled with conduct disorder often have histories of prenatal fetal alcohol exposure. In addition, my understanding is that youth who have been exposed to prenatal alcohol often have symptoms of conduct disorder. Furthermore, research has shown that such youth have smaller brains (Dev Med Child Neurol. 2001 Mar;43[3]:148-54). I wondered whether the youth studied in that trial had been exposed to alcohol prenatally.

More recently, this problem has resurfaced. An article by Antonia N. Kaczkurkin, PhD, and associates about a large sample of youth was nicely done. But again, the variable of fetal alcohol exposure was not considered. The study was an elegant one that provides a strong rationale for consideration of a “psychopathology factor” in human life (Am J Psychiatry. 2019 Jun 24. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2019.1807035). It shored up that argument by doing neuroimaging studies on a reasonably large sample of youth and showed that reduced cortical thickness (gray matter volume) was associated with overall psychopathology. With the exception of failing to consider the variable of fetal alcohol exposure, the study is a valuable addition to our understanding of what might be going on with psychiatric disorders.

Unfortunately – while hating to sound like a broken record – I noticed that there was no consideration of fetal alcohol exposure as a cause for the findings of the study. It does not seem like a large leap to hypothesize some of these brain imaging studies that find smaller brain components associated with psychopathology and conduct disorder to be a dynamic of fetal alcohol exposure.

It seems to me that we made a huge mistake in public health in asking women only whether they were drinking while they were pregnant because it was the wrong question. The right question is – “When did you realize you were pregnant, and were you doing any social drinking before you knew you were pregnant?”

Without understanding the etiology of the smaller brains in patients with conduct disorder or psychopathology, we are missing a golden opportunity to prevent such problems. The former editor of the American Journal of Psychiatry – Robert A. Freedman, MD – suggests that by giving phosphatidyl choline to pregnant women, such problems could be prevented.

Dr. Bell is a staff psychiatrist at Jackson Park Hospital’s Medical/Surgical-Psychiatry Inpatient Unit in Chicago, clinical psychiatrist emeritus in the department of psychiatry at the University of Illinois at Chicago, former president/CEO of Community Mental Health Council, and former director of the Institute for Juvenile Research (birthplace of child psychiatry), also in Chicago. In 2019, he was awarded the Adolph Meyer Award by the American Psychiatric Association for lifetime achievement in psychiatric research.

In 2016, two researchers published a meta-analysis on gray matter abnormalities in youth who had conduct problems.

The study by Jack C. Rogers, PhD, and Stephane A. De Brito, PhD, found 13 well-done studies that included 394 youth with conduct problems and 390 typically developing youth. Compared with the typically developing youth, the conduct-disordered youth had decreased gray matter volume (JAMA Psychiatry. 2016 Jan;73[1]:64-72).

As I knew one of the researchers in one of the studies that made the cut, I called him up and asked whether their research had controlled for fetal alcohol exposure. They had not. I found this very curious because my experience is that youth who have been labeled with conduct disorder often have histories of prenatal fetal alcohol exposure. In addition, my understanding is that youth who have been exposed to prenatal alcohol often have symptoms of conduct disorder. Furthermore, research has shown that such youth have smaller brains (Dev Med Child Neurol. 2001 Mar;43[3]:148-54). I wondered whether the youth studied in that trial had been exposed to alcohol prenatally.

More recently, this problem has resurfaced. An article by Antonia N. Kaczkurkin, PhD, and associates about a large sample of youth was nicely done. But again, the variable of fetal alcohol exposure was not considered. The study was an elegant one that provides a strong rationale for consideration of a “psychopathology factor” in human life (Am J Psychiatry. 2019 Jun 24. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2019.1807035). It shored up that argument by doing neuroimaging studies on a reasonably large sample of youth and showed that reduced cortical thickness (gray matter volume) was associated with overall psychopathology. With the exception of failing to consider the variable of fetal alcohol exposure, the study is a valuable addition to our understanding of what might be going on with psychiatric disorders.

Unfortunately – while hating to sound like a broken record – I noticed that there was no consideration of fetal alcohol exposure as a cause for the findings of the study. It does not seem like a large leap to hypothesize some of these brain imaging studies that find smaller brain components associated with psychopathology and conduct disorder to be a dynamic of fetal alcohol exposure.

It seems to me that we made a huge mistake in public health in asking women only whether they were drinking while they were pregnant because it was the wrong question. The right question is – “When did you realize you were pregnant, and were you doing any social drinking before you knew you were pregnant?”

Without understanding the etiology of the smaller brains in patients with conduct disorder or psychopathology, we are missing a golden opportunity to prevent such problems. The former editor of the American Journal of Psychiatry – Robert A. Freedman, MD – suggests that by giving phosphatidyl choline to pregnant women, such problems could be prevented.

Dr. Bell is a staff psychiatrist at Jackson Park Hospital’s Medical/Surgical-Psychiatry Inpatient Unit in Chicago, clinical psychiatrist emeritus in the department of psychiatry at the University of Illinois at Chicago, former president/CEO of Community Mental Health Council, and former director of the Institute for Juvenile Research (birthplace of child psychiatry), also in Chicago. In 2019, he was awarded the Adolph Meyer Award by the American Psychiatric Association for lifetime achievement in psychiatric research.

Mental health comorbidities increase the rates of opioid use and mortality among breast cancer survivors on endocrine therapy, based on a retrospective study of more than 10,000 patients in a Medicare-linked database.

Screen for mental health conditions in the early stages of cancer care and lean toward opioid alternatives for pain management, advised lead author Raj Desai, MS, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, and colleagues.

“The complex relationship among breast cancer, mental health problems, and the use of opioids is not well understood, despite the high prevalence of mental health comorbidities like depression and anxiety in breast cancer survivors, and the high rate of opioid use in those on AET [adjuvant endocrine therapy],” the investigators wrote in the Journal of Oncology Practice.

“Therefore, this study aimed to determine whether breast cancer survivors with varying levels of mental health comorbidities, such as depression and anxiety, are more likely to use opioids for AET-related pain,” they added.

The study involved 10,452 breast cancer survivors who first filled an AET prescription from 2006 to 2012 and had follow-up records available for at least 2 years. All patients had a diagnosis of incident, primary, hormone receptor–positive, stage I-III breast cancer. Data were drawn from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results–Medicare linked database. Records were evaluated for diagnoses of mental health conditions such as depression and anxiety, opioid use, and survival.

Analysis showed that the most common mental health conditions were depression and anxiety, diagnosed in 554 and 246 women, respectively. Patients with mental health comorbidities were compared with patients who did not have such problems, using both unmatched and matched cohorts. While unmatched comparison for opioid use was not statistically significant, matched comparison showed that survivors with mental health comorbidities were 33% more likely to use opioids than those without mental health comorbidities (95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.68). Similarly, greater adjusted probabilities of opioid use were reported in the mental health comorbidity cohort (72.5% vs. 66.9%; P = .01).

Concerning survival, unmatched comparison revealed a 44% higher risk of death among women with depression and a 32% increase associated with anxiety. Matched comparison showed an even higher increased risk of mortality among women with any mental health comorbidity (49%; P less than .05).

The investigators concluded that opioid use among breast cancer survivors with mental health comorbidities “remains a significant problem.”

“A need exists for collaborative care in the management of mental health comorbidities in women with breast cancer, which could improve symptoms, adherence to treatment, and recovery from these mental conditions,” the investigators wrote. “Mental health treatments also are recommended to be offered in primary care, which not only would be convenient for patients, but also would reduce the stigma associated with treatments for mental health comorbidities and improve the patient-provider relationship.”

The investigators reported financial relationships with Merck.

SOURCE: Desai R et al. J Oncol Pract. 2019 Jul 19. doi: 10.1200/JOP.18.00781.

Mental health comorbidities increase the rates of opioid use and mortality among breast cancer survivors on endocrine therapy, based on a retrospective study of more than 10,000 patients in a Medicare-linked database.

Screen for mental health conditions in the early stages of cancer care and lean toward opioid alternatives for pain management, advised lead author Raj Desai, MS, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, and colleagues.

“The complex relationship among breast cancer, mental health problems, and the use of opioids is not well understood, despite the high prevalence of mental health comorbidities like depression and anxiety in breast cancer survivors, and the high rate of opioid use in those on AET [adjuvant endocrine therapy],” the investigators wrote in the Journal of Oncology Practice.

“Therefore, this study aimed to determine whether breast cancer survivors with varying levels of mental health comorbidities, such as depression and anxiety, are more likely to use opioids for AET-related pain,” they added.

The study involved 10,452 breast cancer survivors who first filled an AET prescription from 2006 to 2012 and had follow-up records available for at least 2 years. All patients had a diagnosis of incident, primary, hormone receptor–positive, stage I-III breast cancer. Data were drawn from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results–Medicare linked database. Records were evaluated for diagnoses of mental health conditions such as depression and anxiety, opioid use, and survival.

Analysis showed that the most common mental health conditions were depression and anxiety, diagnosed in 554 and 246 women, respectively. Patients with mental health comorbidities were compared with patients who did not have such problems, using both unmatched and matched cohorts. While unmatched comparison for opioid use was not statistically significant, matched comparison showed that survivors with mental health comorbidities were 33% more likely to use opioids than those without mental health comorbidities (95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.68). Similarly, greater adjusted probabilities of opioid use were reported in the mental health comorbidity cohort (72.5% vs. 66.9%; P = .01).

Concerning survival, unmatched comparison revealed a 44% higher risk of death among women with depression and a 32% increase associated with anxiety. Matched comparison showed an even higher increased risk of mortality among women with any mental health comorbidity (49%; P less than .05).

The investigators concluded that opioid use among breast cancer survivors with mental health comorbidities “remains a significant problem.”

“A need exists for collaborative care in the management of mental health comorbidities in women with breast cancer, which could improve symptoms, adherence to treatment, and recovery from these mental conditions,” the investigators wrote. “Mental health treatments also are recommended to be offered in primary care, which not only would be convenient for patients, but also would reduce the stigma associated with treatments for mental health comorbidities and improve the patient-provider relationship.”

The investigators reported financial relationships with Merck.

SOURCE: Desai R et al. J Oncol Pract. 2019 Jul 19. doi: 10.1200/JOP.18.00781.

Mental health comorbidities increase the rates of opioid use and mortality among breast cancer survivors on endocrine therapy, based on a retrospective study of more than 10,000 patients in a Medicare-linked database.

Screen for mental health conditions in the early stages of cancer care and lean toward opioid alternatives for pain management, advised lead author Raj Desai, MS, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, and colleagues.

“The complex relationship among breast cancer, mental health problems, and the use of opioids is not well understood, despite the high prevalence of mental health comorbidities like depression and anxiety in breast cancer survivors, and the high rate of opioid use in those on AET [adjuvant endocrine therapy],” the investigators wrote in the Journal of Oncology Practice.

“Therefore, this study aimed to determine whether breast cancer survivors with varying levels of mental health comorbidities, such as depression and anxiety, are more likely to use opioids for AET-related pain,” they added.

The study involved 10,452 breast cancer survivors who first filled an AET prescription from 2006 to 2012 and had follow-up records available for at least 2 years. All patients had a diagnosis of incident, primary, hormone receptor–positive, stage I-III breast cancer. Data were drawn from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results–Medicare linked database. Records were evaluated for diagnoses of mental health conditions such as depression and anxiety, opioid use, and survival.

Analysis showed that the most common mental health conditions were depression and anxiety, diagnosed in 554 and 246 women, respectively. Patients with mental health comorbidities were compared with patients who did not have such problems, using both unmatched and matched cohorts. While unmatched comparison for opioid use was not statistically significant, matched comparison showed that survivors with mental health comorbidities were 33% more likely to use opioids than those without mental health comorbidities (95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.68). Similarly, greater adjusted probabilities of opioid use were reported in the mental health comorbidity cohort (72.5% vs. 66.9%; P = .01).

Concerning survival, unmatched comparison revealed a 44% higher risk of death among women with depression and a 32% increase associated with anxiety. Matched comparison showed an even higher increased risk of mortality among women with any mental health comorbidity (49%; P less than .05).

The investigators concluded that opioid use among breast cancer survivors with mental health comorbidities “remains a significant problem.”

“A need exists for collaborative care in the management of mental health comorbidities in women with breast cancer, which could improve symptoms, adherence to treatment, and recovery from these mental conditions,” the investigators wrote. “Mental health treatments also are recommended to be offered in primary care, which not only would be convenient for patients, but also would reduce the stigma associated with treatments for mental health comorbidities and improve the patient-provider relationship.”

The investigators reported financial relationships with Merck.

SOURCE: Desai R et al. J Oncol Pract. 2019 Jul 19. doi: 10.1200/JOP.18.00781.

SAN ANTONIO – Most attention paid to barriers for medication-assisted treatment of opioid use disorder has focused on prescribers and patients, but pharmacists are “a neglected link in the chain,” according to Hannah Cooper, ScD, an assistant professor of behavioral sciences and health education at Emory University, Atlanta.

StockPlanets/Getty Images

“Pharmacy-based dispensing of buprenorphine is one of the medication’s major advances over methadone,” Dr. Cooper told attendees at the annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence. Yet, early interviews she and her colleagues conducted with rural Kentucky pharmacist colleagues in the CARE2HOPE study “revealed that pharmacy-level barriers might also curtail access to buprenorphine.”

Little research has examined those barriers, but one past survey of pharmacists in West Virginia found that half did not stock buprenorphine, Dr. Cooper noted. Further, anecdotal evidence has suggested that wholesaler concerns about Drug Enforcement Administration restrictions on dispensing buprenorphine has caused shortages at pharmacies.

Dr. Cooper and colleagues, therefore, designed a qualitative study aimed at learning about pharmacists’ attitudes and dispensing practices related to buprenorphine. They also looked at whether DEA limits actually exist on dispensing the drug. They interviewed 14 pharmacists operating 15 pharmacies across all 12 counties in two rural Kentucky health districts. Eleven of the pharmacists worked in independent pharmacies; the others worked at chains. Six pharmacies dispensed more than 100 buprenorphine prescriptions a month, five dispensed only several dozen a month, and four refused to dispense it at all.

Perceptions of federal restrictions

“Variations in buprenorphine dispensing did not solely reflect underlying variations in local need or prescribing practices,” Dr. Cooper said. At 12 of the 15 pharmacies, limits on buprenorphine resulted from a perceived DEA “cap” on dispensing the drug or “because of distrust in buprenorphine itself, its prescribers and its patients.”

The perceived cap from the DEA was shrouded in uncertainty: 10 of the pharmacists said the DEA capped the percentage of controlled substances pharmacists could dispense that were opioids, yet the pharmacists did not know what that percentage was.

Five of those interviewed said the cap often significantly cut short how many buprenorphine prescriptions they would dispense. Since they did not know how much the cap was, they internally set arbitrary limits, such as dispensing two prescriptions per day, to avoid risk of the DEA investigating their pharmacy.

Yet, those limits could not meet patient demand, so several pharmacists rationed buprenorphine only to local residents or long-term customers, causing additional problems. That practice strained relationships with prescribers, who then had to call multiple pharmacies to find one that would dispense the drug to new patients. It also put pharmacy staff at risk when a rejection angered a customer and “undermined local recovery efforts,” Dr. Cooper said.

Five other pharmacists, however, did not ration their buprenorphine and did not worry about exceeding the DEA cap.

No numerical cap appears to exist, but DEA regulations and the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act do require internal opioid surveillance systems at wholesalers that flag suspicious orders of controlled substances, including buprenorphine. And they enforce it: An $80 million settlement in 2013 resulted from the DEA’s charge that Walgreens distribution centers did not report suspicious drug orders.

Stigma among some pharmacists

Six of the pharmacists had low trust in buprenorphine and in those who prescribed it and used it, Dr. Cooper reported. Three would not dispense the drug at all, and two would not take new buprenorphine patients.

One such pharmacist told researchers: “It is supposed to be the drug to help them [recover.] They want Suboxone worse than they do the hydrocodone. … It’s not what it’s designed to be.”

Those pharmacists also reported believing that malpractice was common among prescribers, who, for example, did not provide required counseling to patients or did not quickly wean them off buprenorphine. The pharmacists perceived the physicians prescribing buprenorphine as doing so only to make more money, just as they had done by prescribing opioids in the first place.

Those pharmacists also believed the patients themselves sold buprenorphine to make money and that opioid use disorder was a choice. They told researchers that dispensing buprenorphine would bring more drug users to their stores and subsequently hurt business.

Yet, those beliefs were not universal among the pharmacists. Eight believed buprenorphine was an appropriate opioid use disorder treatment and had positive attitudes toward patients. Unlike those who viewed the disorder as a choice, those pharmacists saw it as a disease and viewed the patients admirably for their commitment to recovery.

Though a small, qualitative study, those findings suggest a need to more closely examine how pharmacies affect access to medication to treat opioid use disorder, Dr. Cooper said.

“In an epicenter of the U.S. opioid epidemic, policies and stigma curtail access to buprenorphine,” she told attendees. “DEA regulations, the SUPPORT Act, and related lawsuits have led wholesalers to develop proprietary caps that force some pharmacists to ration the number of buprenorphine prescriptions they filled.” Some pharmacists will not dispense the drug at all, while others “limited dispensing to known or local patients and prescribers, a practice that pharmacists recognized hurt patients who had to travel far to reach prescribers.”

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health through CARE2HOPE, Rural Health Project, and the Emory Center for AIDS Research. The authors reported no disclosures.

SAN ANTONIO – Most attention paid to barriers for medication-assisted treatment of opioid use disorder has focused on prescribers and patients, but pharmacists are “a neglected link in the chain,” according to Hannah Cooper, ScD, an assistant professor of behavioral sciences and health education at Emory University, Atlanta.

StockPlanets/Getty Images

“Pharmacy-based dispensing of buprenorphine is one of the medication’s major advances over methadone,” Dr. Cooper told attendees at the annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence. Yet, early interviews she and her colleagues conducted with rural Kentucky pharmacist colleagues in the CARE2HOPE study “revealed that pharmacy-level barriers might also curtail access to buprenorphine.”

Little research has examined those barriers, but one past survey of pharmacists in West Virginia found that half did not stock buprenorphine, Dr. Cooper noted. Further, anecdotal evidence has suggested that wholesaler concerns about Drug Enforcement Administration restrictions on dispensing buprenorphine has caused shortages at pharmacies.

Dr. Cooper and colleagues, therefore, designed a qualitative study aimed at learning about pharmacists’ attitudes and dispensing practices related to buprenorphine. They also looked at whether DEA limits actually exist on dispensing the drug. They interviewed 14 pharmacists operating 15 pharmacies across all 12 counties in two rural Kentucky health districts. Eleven of the pharmacists worked in independent pharmacies; the others worked at chains. Six pharmacies dispensed more than 100 buprenorphine prescriptions a month, five dispensed only several dozen a month, and four refused to dispense it at all.

Perceptions of federal restrictions

“Variations in buprenorphine dispensing did not solely reflect underlying variations in local need or prescribing practices,” Dr. Cooper said. At 12 of the 15 pharmacies, limits on buprenorphine resulted from a perceived DEA “cap” on dispensing the drug or “because of distrust in buprenorphine itself, its prescribers and its patients.”

The perceived cap from the DEA was shrouded in uncertainty: 10 of the pharmacists said the DEA capped the percentage of controlled substances pharmacists could dispense that were opioids, yet the pharmacists did not know what that percentage was.

Five of those interviewed said the cap often significantly cut short how many buprenorphine prescriptions they would dispense. Since they did not know how much the cap was, they internally set arbitrary limits, such as dispensing two prescriptions per day, to avoid risk of the DEA investigating their pharmacy.

Yet, those limits could not meet patient demand, so several pharmacists rationed buprenorphine only to local residents or long-term customers, causing additional problems. That practice strained relationships with prescribers, who then had to call multiple pharmacies to find one that would dispense the drug to new patients. It also put pharmacy staff at risk when a rejection angered a customer and “undermined local recovery efforts,” Dr. Cooper said.

Five other pharmacists, however, did not ration their buprenorphine and did not worry about exceeding the DEA cap.

No numerical cap appears to exist, but DEA regulations and the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act do require internal opioid surveillance systems at wholesalers that flag suspicious orders of controlled substances, including buprenorphine. And they enforce it: An $80 million settlement in 2013 resulted from the DEA’s charge that Walgreens distribution centers did not report suspicious drug orders.

Stigma among some pharmacists

Six of the pharmacists had low trust in buprenorphine and in those who prescribed it and used it, Dr. Cooper reported. Three would not dispense the drug at all, and two would not take new buprenorphine patients.

One such pharmacist told researchers: “It is supposed to be the drug to help them [recover.] They want Suboxone worse than they do the hydrocodone. … It’s not what it’s designed to be.”

Those pharmacists also reported believing that malpractice was common among prescribers, who, for example, did not provide required counseling to patients or did not quickly wean them off buprenorphine. The pharmacists perceived the physicians prescribing buprenorphine as doing so only to make more money, just as they had done by prescribing opioids in the first place.

Those pharmacists also believed the patients themselves sold buprenorphine to make money and that opioid use disorder was a choice. They told researchers that dispensing buprenorphine would bring more drug users to their stores and subsequently hurt business.

Yet, those beliefs were not universal among the pharmacists. Eight believed buprenorphine was an appropriate opioid use disorder treatment and had positive attitudes toward patients. Unlike those who viewed the disorder as a choice, those pharmacists saw it as a disease and viewed the patients admirably for their commitment to recovery.

Though a small, qualitative study, those findings suggest a need to more closely examine how pharmacies affect access to medication to treat opioid use disorder, Dr. Cooper said.

“In an epicenter of the U.S. opioid epidemic, policies and stigma curtail access to buprenorphine,” she told attendees. “DEA regulations, the SUPPORT Act, and related lawsuits have led wholesalers to develop proprietary caps that force some pharmacists to ration the number of buprenorphine prescriptions they filled.” Some pharmacists will not dispense the drug at all, while others “limited dispensing to known or local patients and prescribers, a practice that pharmacists recognized hurt patients who had to travel far to reach prescribers.”

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health through CARE2HOPE, Rural Health Project, and the Emory Center for AIDS Research. The authors reported no disclosures.

SAN ANTONIO – Most attention paid to barriers for medication-assisted treatment of opioid use disorder has focused on prescribers and patients, but pharmacists are “a neglected link in the chain,” according to Hannah Cooper, ScD, an assistant professor of behavioral sciences and health education at Emory University, Atlanta.

StockPlanets/Getty Images

“Pharmacy-based dispensing of buprenorphine is one of the medication’s major advances over methadone,” Dr. Cooper told attendees at the annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence. Yet, early interviews she and her colleagues conducted with rural Kentucky pharmacist colleagues in the CARE2HOPE study “revealed that pharmacy-level barriers might also curtail access to buprenorphine.”

Little research has examined those barriers, but one past survey of pharmacists in West Virginia found that half did not stock buprenorphine, Dr. Cooper noted. Further, anecdotal evidence has suggested that wholesaler concerns about Drug Enforcement Administration restrictions on dispensing buprenorphine has caused shortages at pharmacies.

Dr. Cooper and colleagues, therefore, designed a qualitative study aimed at learning about pharmacists’ attitudes and dispensing practices related to buprenorphine. They also looked at whether DEA limits actually exist on dispensing the drug. They interviewed 14 pharmacists operating 15 pharmacies across all 12 counties in two rural Kentucky health districts. Eleven of the pharmacists worked in independent pharmacies; the others worked at chains. Six pharmacies dispensed more than 100 buprenorphine prescriptions a month, five dispensed only several dozen a month, and four refused to dispense it at all.

Perceptions of federal restrictions

“Variations in buprenorphine dispensing did not solely reflect underlying variations in local need or prescribing practices,” Dr. Cooper said. At 12 of the 15 pharmacies, limits on buprenorphine resulted from a perceived DEA “cap” on dispensing the drug or “because of distrust in buprenorphine itself, its prescribers and its patients.”

The perceived cap from the DEA was shrouded in uncertainty: 10 of the pharmacists said the DEA capped the percentage of controlled substances pharmacists could dispense that were opioids, yet the pharmacists did not know what that percentage was.

Five of those interviewed said the cap often significantly cut short how many buprenorphine prescriptions they would dispense. Since they did not know how much the cap was, they internally set arbitrary limits, such as dispensing two prescriptions per day, to avoid risk of the DEA investigating their pharmacy.

Yet, those limits could not meet patient demand, so several pharmacists rationed buprenorphine only to local residents or long-term customers, causing additional problems. That practice strained relationships with prescribers, who then had to call multiple pharmacies to find one that would dispense the drug to new patients. It also put pharmacy staff at risk when a rejection angered a customer and “undermined local recovery efforts,” Dr. Cooper said.

Five other pharmacists, however, did not ration their buprenorphine and did not worry about exceeding the DEA cap.

No numerical cap appears to exist, but DEA regulations and the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act do require internal opioid surveillance systems at wholesalers that flag suspicious orders of controlled substances, including buprenorphine. And they enforce it: An $80 million settlement in 2013 resulted from the DEA’s charge that Walgreens distribution centers did not report suspicious drug orders.

Stigma among some pharmacists

Six of the pharmacists had low trust in buprenorphine and in those who prescribed it and used it, Dr. Cooper reported. Three would not dispense the drug at all, and two would not take new buprenorphine patients.

One such pharmacist told researchers: “It is supposed to be the drug to help them [recover.] They want Suboxone worse than they do the hydrocodone. … It’s not what it’s designed to be.”

Those pharmacists also reported believing that malpractice was common among prescribers, who, for example, did not provide required counseling to patients or did not quickly wean them off buprenorphine. The pharmacists perceived the physicians prescribing buprenorphine as doing so only to make more money, just as they had done by prescribing opioids in the first place.

Those pharmacists also believed the patients themselves sold buprenorphine to make money and that opioid use disorder was a choice. They told researchers that dispensing buprenorphine would bring more drug users to their stores and subsequently hurt business.

Yet, those beliefs were not universal among the pharmacists. Eight believed buprenorphine was an appropriate opioid use disorder treatment and had positive attitudes toward patients. Unlike those who viewed the disorder as a choice, those pharmacists saw it as a disease and viewed the patients admirably for their commitment to recovery.

Though a small, qualitative study, those findings suggest a need to more closely examine how pharmacies affect access to medication to treat opioid use disorder, Dr. Cooper said.

“In an epicenter of the U.S. opioid epidemic, policies and stigma curtail access to buprenorphine,” she told attendees. “DEA regulations, the SUPPORT Act, and related lawsuits have led wholesalers to develop proprietary caps that force some pharmacists to ration the number of buprenorphine prescriptions they filled.” Some pharmacists will not dispense the drug at all, while others “limited dispensing to known or local patients and prescribers, a practice that pharmacists recognized hurt patients who had to travel far to reach prescribers.”

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health through CARE2HOPE, Rural Health Project, and the Emory Center for AIDS Research. The authors reported no disclosures.

The majority of adult cigarette smokers in the United States try to quit each year, but there was little change in the rate of quit attempts from 2011 to 2017, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The median percentage of adult smokers who tried to quit cigarettes over the past year went from 64.9% in 2011 to 65.4% in 2017, CDC investigators reported in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, but the rate has gone down since 2014, when it reached 66.9%.

“The limited progress in increasing quit attempts … together with the variation in quit attempt prevalence among states, underscores the importance of enhanced efforts to motivate and help smokers to quit,” wrote Kimp Walton, MS, of the CDC’s National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion and associates.

State-specific trends in quit-attempt rates reflected the national situation. The prevalence of past-year cessation attempts went up significantly in four states (Kansas, Louisiana, Virginia, and West Virginia) from 2011 to 2017, went down significantly in two states (New York and Tennessee), and did not change significantly in the other 44 states and the District of Columbia, they wrote.

In 2017, cigarette smokers in Connecticut were the most likely to have tried to quit in the past year, with a rate of 71.6%. The only other places with rates greater than 70% were Delaware, D.C., New Jersey, and Texas. The lowest quit-attempt rate that year, 58.6%, belonged to Wisconsin, with Iowa and Missouri the only other states under 60%, the investigators reported based on data from annual Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System surveys.


“Because most smokers make multiple quit attempts before succeeding, as many as 30 on average, tobacco dependence is viewed as a chronic, relapsing condition that requires repeated intervention. Smokers should be encouraged to keep trying to quit until they succeed, and health care providers should be encouraged to keep supporting smokers until they quit,” investigators wrote.

rfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Walton K et al. MMWR. 2019 Jul 19;68(28):621-6.

The majority of adult cigarette smokers in the United States try to quit each year, but there was little change in the rate of quit attempts from 2011 to 2017, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The median percentage of adult smokers who tried to quit cigarettes over the past year went from 64.9% in 2011 to 65.4% in 2017, CDC investigators reported in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, but the rate has gone down since 2014, when it reached 66.9%.

“The limited progress in increasing quit attempts … together with the variation in quit attempt prevalence among states, underscores the importance of enhanced efforts to motivate and help smokers to quit,” wrote Kimp Walton, MS, of the CDC’s National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion and associates.

State-specific trends in quit-attempt rates reflected the national situation. The prevalence of past-year cessation attempts went up significantly in four states (Kansas, Louisiana, Virginia, and West Virginia) from 2011 to 2017, went down significantly in two states (New York and Tennessee), and did not change significantly in the other 44 states and the District of Columbia, they wrote.

In 2017, cigarette smokers in Connecticut were the most likely to have tried to quit in the past year, with a rate of 71.6%. The only other places with rates greater than 70% were Delaware, D.C., New Jersey, and Texas. The lowest quit-attempt rate that year, 58.6%, belonged to Wisconsin, with Iowa and Missouri the only other states under 60%, the investigators reported based on data from annual Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System surveys.


“Because most smokers make multiple quit attempts before succeeding, as many as 30 on average, tobacco dependence is viewed as a chronic, relapsing condition that requires repeated intervention. Smokers should be encouraged to keep trying to quit until they succeed, and health care providers should be encouraged to keep supporting smokers until they quit,” investigators wrote.

rfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Walton K et al. MMWR. 2019 Jul 19;68(28):621-6.

The majority of adult cigarette smokers in the United States try to quit each year, but there was little change in the rate of quit attempts from 2011 to 2017, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The median percentage of adult smokers who tried to quit cigarettes over the past year went from 64.9% in 2011 to 65.4% in 2017, CDC investigators reported in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, but the rate has gone down since 2014, when it reached 66.9%.

“The limited progress in increasing quit attempts … together with the variation in quit attempt prevalence among states, underscores the importance of enhanced efforts to motivate and help smokers to quit,” wrote Kimp Walton, MS, of the CDC’s National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion and associates.

State-specific trends in quit-attempt rates reflected the national situation. The prevalence of past-year cessation attempts went up significantly in four states (Kansas, Louisiana, Virginia, and West Virginia) from 2011 to 2017, went down significantly in two states (New York and Tennessee), and did not change significantly in the other 44 states and the District of Columbia, they wrote.

In 2017, cigarette smokers in Connecticut were the most likely to have tried to quit in the past year, with a rate of 71.6%. The only other places with rates greater than 70% were Delaware, D.C., New Jersey, and Texas. The lowest quit-attempt rate that year, 58.6%, belonged to Wisconsin, with Iowa and Missouri the only other states under 60%, the investigators reported based on data from annual Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System surveys.


“Because most smokers make multiple quit attempts before succeeding, as many as 30 on average, tobacco dependence is viewed as a chronic, relapsing condition that requires repeated intervention. Smokers should be encouraged to keep trying to quit until they succeed, and health care providers should be encouraged to keep supporting smokers until they quit,” investigators wrote.

rfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Walton K et al. MMWR. 2019 Jul 19;68(28):621-6.

Reported drug overdose deaths in the United States declined by 4.2% from December 2017 to December 2018, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported on July 17.

“The latest provisional data on overdose deaths show that America’s united efforts to curb opioid use disorder and addiction are working. Lives are being saved, and we’re beginning to win the fight against this crisis,” Health & Human Services Secretary Alex Azar said in a written statement. “Under President Trump’s leadership, and thanks to efforts on the ground by communities across America, the number of patients receiving medication-assisted treatment has risen, distribution of overdose-reversing drugs is up, and nationwide opioid prescriptions are down.”

The new data show that total drug overdose deaths were down from 70,699 in 2017 to 67,744 in 2018, a drop of 4.2%, the CDC said.

States, of course, fell on both sides of that national figure. Alaska had the largest 1-year drop, –25.5%, followed by South Dakota, Ohio, Iowa, and Pennsylvania. Delaware and Missouri wound up on the other end of the scale with increases of 17.0% from 2017 to 2018. Deaths in Vermont, Arizona, and South Carolina also rose by double digits, data from the National Vital Statistics System show.

“While the declining trend of overdose deaths is an encouraging sign, by no means have we declared victory against the epidemic or addiction in general,” Secretary Azar said. “This crisis developed over 2 decades and it will not be solved overnight. We also face other emerging threats, like concerning trends in cocaine and methamphetamine overdoses.”

rfranki@mdedge.com

Reported drug overdose deaths in the United States declined by 4.2% from December 2017 to December 2018, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported on July 17.

“The latest provisional data on overdose deaths show that America’s united efforts to curb opioid use disorder and addiction are working. Lives are being saved, and we’re beginning to win the fight against this crisis,” Health & Human Services Secretary Alex Azar said in a written statement. “Under President Trump’s leadership, and thanks to efforts on the ground by communities across America, the number of patients receiving medication-assisted treatment has risen, distribution of overdose-reversing drugs is up, and nationwide opioid prescriptions are down.”

The new data show that total drug overdose deaths were down from 70,699 in 2017 to 67,744 in 2018, a drop of 4.2%, the CDC said.

States, of course, fell on both sides of that national figure. Alaska had the largest 1-year drop, –25.5%, followed by South Dakota, Ohio, Iowa, and Pennsylvania. Delaware and Missouri wound up on the other end of the scale with increases of 17.0% from 2017 to 2018. Deaths in Vermont, Arizona, and South Carolina also rose by double digits, data from the National Vital Statistics System show.

“While the declining trend of overdose deaths is an encouraging sign, by no means have we declared victory against the epidemic or addiction in general,” Secretary Azar said. “This crisis developed over 2 decades and it will not be solved overnight. We also face other emerging threats, like concerning trends in cocaine and methamphetamine overdoses.”

rfranki@mdedge.com

Reported drug overdose deaths in the United States declined by 4.2% from December 2017 to December 2018, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported on July 17.

“The latest provisional data on overdose deaths show that America’s united efforts to curb opioid use disorder and addiction are working. Lives are being saved, and we’re beginning to win the fight against this crisis,” Health & Human Services Secretary Alex Azar said in a written statement. “Under President Trump’s leadership, and thanks to efforts on the ground by communities across America, the number of patients receiving medication-assisted treatment has risen, distribution of overdose-reversing drugs is up, and nationwide opioid prescriptions are down.”

The new data show that total drug overdose deaths were down from 70,699 in 2017 to 67,744 in 2018, a drop of 4.2%, the CDC said.

States, of course, fell on both sides of that national figure. Alaska had the largest 1-year drop, –25.5%, followed by South Dakota, Ohio, Iowa, and Pennsylvania. Delaware and Missouri wound up on the other end of the scale with increases of 17.0% from 2017 to 2018. Deaths in Vermont, Arizona, and South Carolina also rose by double digits, data from the National Vital Statistics System show.

“While the declining trend of overdose deaths is an encouraging sign, by no means have we declared victory against the epidemic or addiction in general,” Secretary Azar said. “This crisis developed over 2 decades and it will not be solved overnight. We also face other emerging threats, like concerning trends in cocaine and methamphetamine overdoses.”

rfranki@mdedge.com

JUUL and JUUL-like products, popular vaping devices, are being promoted with a large volume of social media posts directed at young people with targeted messages and images, a study of e-cigarette promotion has found.

In 2018, the JUUL company declared a commitment to support efforts to raise the age of legal purchase of tobacco to age 21 years in all U.S. states. In addition, JUUL deleted its official Facebook and Instagram accounts in November 2018, but the promotion of these products has continued through affiliated marketing campaigns from other online vendors.

Vaping among teens has shot up in popularity in recent years. The prevalence of vaping among young people aged 16-19 years has been estimated at 16% in 2018, up from 11% in 2017 (BMJ. 2019 Jun 19. doi: 10.1136/bmj.12219. A study published in JAMA Pediatrics (2019;173[7]:690-92) found that an estimated 81% of users following a popular Twitter account (@JUULvapor) were aged 13-20 years, with 45% in the 13-17 year age range.

Elizabeth C. Hair, PhD, senior vice president of the Truth Initiative Schroeder Institute, and a team of investigators conducted a study of the “proliferation of JUUL-related content across four themes over a 3-month period: overt promotional content, nicotine and addiction-related content, lifestyle content, and content related to youth culture.” The study appeared online in Tobacco Control (2019 Jul 2; doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2018-054824).

The investigators did a content analysis of social media posts on Instagram related to JUUL and JUUL-like products from March 1 to May 15, 2018. Hash-tag keyword queries of JUUL-related posts on Instagram were collected from the Instagram application programming interface through NUVI, a licensed syndicator of the Instagram firehose. The researchers used 50 hashtags to capture and enumerate individual posts. Examples of the hashtags used are #juul, #juuling, #juulvapor, #juulpod, #switchtojuul, and #juulgang. All posts were included from the official JUUL account and JUUL-related accounts with the highest number of followers at the time of data collection (e.g., @juulcentral, @juulnation, @juul_university, @juul.girls).

Nicotine/addiction posts contained “references to nicotine, including compatible pod-related brand names and nicotine content, as well as any references to addiction or nicotine dependence (e.g., daily use, being an addict, junkie, “nichead,” fiend, maniac), or effects of nicotine use (e.g., “buzz”). 

Youth-themed posts included stylistic features such as jargon or slang, acronyms common among youth (e.g., di4j, doit4juul), youth-oriented cartoons, JUUL wrap imagery, youth entertainment, and music. Posts with references to school, the classroom, and other places frequented by youth and youth social networks, family, and peers were included in the youth-themed category.

Lifestyle content referenced "social norms and acceptability-related messages contained any mentions of online or offline communitiesand peer groups (eg, collegelife, juulgirls, juulgang, vapeusa, collegedaily, vapelyfe hashtags) as well as JUUL use during social activities, events, social acceptance of JUULing and any mentions of JUULing as a characteristic of cultural or social identity."

Content analysis of the posts found that 34.3% were promotional, 11% referenced nicotine and addiction themes, and 55.4% featured youth-oriented cultural themes, and 57% featured lifestyle themes. There was overlap among the categories, for example, the 71.9% of the promotional posts had lifestyle messages included and 86.3% of the nicotine/addiction posts contained lifestyle elements. The promotional posts also contained some hashtags referencing cannabis (#420, #710).


An additional feature of the promotional posts is the incentivizing messages. “More than more than a third of JUUL-related posts containing overt promotional content that highlights ways to obtain products at reduced cost, such as giveaways and incentivized friend-tagging. This finding is consistent with previous research which found that Twitter users employed person-tagging (e.g., @username) when purchasing JUUL, suggesting friend-tagging plays an important role in motivating product use,” the researchers wrote.

The study was limited by the short time frame, the analysis of Instagram postings only, and the limitation of only 50 hashtags. These limitations may result in underreporting of the amount of JUUL-related social media messaging that targets youth. In addition, the investigators did not analyze the origin of accounts or the identity of the individuals creating the content.

“The results of this study demonstrate the reach of organic posts that contain JUUL-related content, and posts by third-party vendors of vaping products, who continue to push explicitly youth-targeted advertisements for JUUL and similar e-cigarette products under JUUL-related hashtags,” Dr. Hair wrote. “Our research and studies done by others in the field are one way to build the evidence base to advocate for stricter social media marketing restrictions on tobacco products that are applicable to all players in the field.”

She added that the Food and Drug Administration should use its power to restrict e-cigarette manufacturers from using social media to market to young people. “We also think that social media platforms should do more to adopt and enforce strong and well-enforced policies against the promotion of any tobacco products to young adults,” she concluded.

The study was sponsored by the Truth Initiative. The Truth Initiative was created as a part of the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) that was negotiated between the tobacco industry and 46 states and the District of Columbia in 1998. The MSA created the American Legacy Foundation (now known as the Truth Initiative), a nonprofit research and educational organization that focuses its efforts on preventing teen smoking and encouraging smokers to quit.

tborden@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Czaplicki L et al. Tob Control. 2019 Jul 2; doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2018-054824.

This article was updated 7/17/2019.

JUUL and JUUL-like products, popular vaping devices, are being promoted with a large volume of social media posts directed at young people with targeted messages and images, a study of e-cigarette promotion has found.

In 2018, the JUUL company declared a commitment to support efforts to raise the age of legal purchase of tobacco to age 21 years in all U.S. states. In addition, JUUL deleted its official Facebook and Instagram accounts in November 2018, but the promotion of these products has continued through affiliated marketing campaigns from other online vendors.

Vaping among teens has shot up in popularity in recent years. The prevalence of vaping among young people aged 16-19 years has been estimated at 16% in 2018, up from 11% in 2017 (BMJ. 2019 Jun 19. doi: 10.1136/bmj.12219. A study published in JAMA Pediatrics (2019;173[7]:690-92) found that an estimated 81% of users following a popular Twitter account (@JUULvapor) were aged 13-20 years, with 45% in the 13-17 year age range.

Elizabeth C. Hair, PhD, senior vice president of the Truth Initiative Schroeder Institute, and a team of investigators conducted a study of the “proliferation of JUUL-related content across four themes over a 3-month period: overt promotional content, nicotine and addiction-related content, lifestyle content, and content related to youth culture.” The study appeared online in Tobacco Control (2019 Jul 2; doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2018-054824).

The investigators did a content analysis of social media posts on Instagram related to JUUL and JUUL-like products from March 1 to May 15, 2018. Hash-tag keyword queries of JUUL-related posts on Instagram were collected from the Instagram application programming interface through NUVI, a licensed syndicator of the Instagram firehose. The researchers used 50 hashtags to capture and enumerate individual posts. Examples of the hashtags used are #juul, #juuling, #juulvapor, #juulpod, #switchtojuul, and #juulgang. All posts were included from the official JUUL account and JUUL-related accounts with the highest number of followers at the time of data collection (e.g., @juulcentral, @juulnation, @juul_university, @juul.girls).

Nicotine/addiction posts contained “references to nicotine, including compatible pod-related brand names and nicotine content, as well as any references to addiction or nicotine dependence (e.g., daily use, being an addict, junkie, “nichead,” fiend, maniac), or effects of nicotine use (e.g., “buzz”). 

Youth-themed posts included stylistic features such as jargon or slang, acronyms common among youth (e.g., di4j, doit4juul), youth-oriented cartoons, JUUL wrap imagery, youth entertainment, and music. Posts with references to school, the classroom, and other places frequented by youth and youth social networks, family, and peers were included in the youth-themed category.

Lifestyle content referenced "social norms and acceptability-related messages contained any mentions of online or offline communitiesand peer groups (eg, collegelife, juulgirls, juulgang, vapeusa, collegedaily, vapelyfe hashtags) as well as JUUL use during social activities, events, social acceptance of JUULing and any mentions of JUULing as a characteristic of cultural or social identity."

Content analysis of the posts found that 34.3% were promotional, 11% referenced nicotine and addiction themes, and 55.4% featured youth-oriented cultural themes, and 57% featured lifestyle themes. There was overlap among the categories, for example, the 71.9% of the promotional posts had lifestyle messages included and 86.3% of the nicotine/addiction posts contained lifestyle elements. The promotional posts also contained some hashtags referencing cannabis (#420, #710).


An additional feature of the promotional posts is the incentivizing messages. “More than more than a third of JUUL-related posts containing overt promotional content that highlights ways to obtain products at reduced cost, such as giveaways and incentivized friend-tagging. This finding is consistent with previous research which found that Twitter users employed person-tagging (e.g., @username) when purchasing JUUL, suggesting friend-tagging plays an important role in motivating product use,” the researchers wrote.

The study was limited by the short time frame, the analysis of Instagram postings only, and the limitation of only 50 hashtags. These limitations may result in underreporting of the amount of JUUL-related social media messaging that targets youth. In addition, the investigators did not analyze the origin of accounts or the identity of the individuals creating the content.

“The results of this study demonstrate the reach of organic posts that contain JUUL-related content, and posts by third-party vendors of vaping products, who continue to push explicitly youth-targeted advertisements for JUUL and similar e-cigarette products under JUUL-related hashtags,” Dr. Hair wrote. “Our research and studies done by others in the field are one way to build the evidence base to advocate for stricter social media marketing restrictions on tobacco products that are applicable to all players in the field.”

She added that the Food and Drug Administration should use its power to restrict e-cigarette manufacturers from using social media to market to young people. “We also think that social media platforms should do more to adopt and enforce strong and well-enforced policies against the promotion of any tobacco products to young adults,” she concluded.

The study was sponsored by the Truth Initiative. The Truth Initiative was created as a part of the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) that was negotiated between the tobacco industry and 46 states and the District of Columbia in 1998. The MSA created the American Legacy Foundation (now known as the Truth Initiative), a nonprofit research and educational organization that focuses its efforts on preventing teen smoking and encouraging smokers to quit.

tborden@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Czaplicki L et al. Tob Control. 2019 Jul 2; doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2018-054824.

This article was updated 7/17/2019.

JUUL and JUUL-like products, popular vaping devices, are being promoted with a large volume of social media posts directed at young people with targeted messages and images, a study of e-cigarette promotion has found.

In 2018, the JUUL company declared a commitment to support efforts to raise the age of legal purchase of tobacco to age 21 years in all U.S. states. In addition, JUUL deleted its official Facebook and Instagram accounts in November 2018, but the promotion of these products has continued through affiliated marketing campaigns from other online vendors.

Vaping among teens has shot up in popularity in recent years. The prevalence of vaping among young people aged 16-19 years has been estimated at 16% in 2018, up from 11% in 2017 (BMJ. 2019 Jun 19. doi: 10.1136/bmj.12219. A study published in JAMA Pediatrics (2019;173[7]:690-92) found that an estimated 81% of users following a popular Twitter account (@JUULvapor) were aged 13-20 years, with 45% in the 13-17 year age range.

Elizabeth C. Hair, PhD, senior vice president of the Truth Initiative Schroeder Institute, and a team of investigators conducted a study of the “proliferation of JUUL-related content across four themes over a 3-month period: overt promotional content, nicotine and addiction-related content, lifestyle content, and content related to youth culture.” The study appeared online in Tobacco Control (2019 Jul 2; doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2018-054824).

The investigators did a content analysis of social media posts on Instagram related to JUUL and JUUL-like products from March 1 to May 15, 2018. Hash-tag keyword queries of JUUL-related posts on Instagram were collected from the Instagram application programming interface through NUVI, a licensed syndicator of the Instagram firehose. The researchers used 50 hashtags to capture and enumerate individual posts. Examples of the hashtags used are #juul, #juuling, #juulvapor, #juulpod, #switchtojuul, and #juulgang. All posts were included from the official JUUL account and JUUL-related accounts with the highest number of followers at the time of data collection (e.g., @juulcentral, @juulnation, @juul_university, @juul.girls).

Nicotine/addiction posts contained “references to nicotine, including compatible pod-related brand names and nicotine content, as well as any references to addiction or nicotine dependence (e.g., daily use, being an addict, junkie, “nichead,” fiend, maniac), or effects of nicotine use (e.g., “buzz”). 

Youth-themed posts included stylistic features such as jargon or slang, acronyms common among youth (e.g., di4j, doit4juul), youth-oriented cartoons, JUUL wrap imagery, youth entertainment, and music. Posts with references to school, the classroom, and other places frequented by youth and youth social networks, family, and peers were included in the youth-themed category.

Lifestyle content referenced "social norms and acceptability-related messages contained any mentions of online or offline communitiesand peer groups (eg, collegelife, juulgirls, juulgang, vapeusa, collegedaily, vapelyfe hashtags) as well as JUUL use during social activities, events, social acceptance of JUULing and any mentions of JUULing as a characteristic of cultural or social identity."

Content analysis of the posts found that 34.3% were promotional, 11% referenced nicotine and addiction themes, and 55.4% featured youth-oriented cultural themes, and 57% featured lifestyle themes. There was overlap among the categories, for example, the 71.9% of the promotional posts had lifestyle messages included and 86.3% of the nicotine/addiction posts contained lifestyle elements. The promotional posts also contained some hashtags referencing cannabis (#420, #710).


An additional feature of the promotional posts is the incentivizing messages. “More than more than a third of JUUL-related posts containing overt promotional content that highlights ways to obtain products at reduced cost, such as giveaways and incentivized friend-tagging. This finding is consistent with previous research which found that Twitter users employed person-tagging (e.g., @username) when purchasing JUUL, suggesting friend-tagging plays an important role in motivating product use,” the researchers wrote.

The study was limited by the short time frame, the analysis of Instagram postings only, and the limitation of only 50 hashtags. These limitations may result in underreporting of the amount of JUUL-related social media messaging that targets youth. In addition, the investigators did not analyze the origin of accounts or the identity of the individuals creating the content.

“The results of this study demonstrate the reach of organic posts that contain JUUL-related content, and posts by third-party vendors of vaping products, who continue to push explicitly youth-targeted advertisements for JUUL and similar e-cigarette products under JUUL-related hashtags,” Dr. Hair wrote. “Our research and studies done by others in the field are one way to build the evidence base to advocate for stricter social media marketing restrictions on tobacco products that are applicable to all players in the field.”

She added that the Food and Drug Administration should use its power to restrict e-cigarette manufacturers from using social media to market to young people. “We also think that social media platforms should do more to adopt and enforce strong and well-enforced policies against the promotion of any tobacco products to young adults,” she concluded.

The study was sponsored by the Truth Initiative. The Truth Initiative was created as a part of the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) that was negotiated between the tobacco industry and 46 states and the District of Columbia in 1998. The MSA created the American Legacy Foundation (now known as the Truth Initiative), a nonprofit research and educational organization that focuses its efforts on preventing teen smoking and encouraging smokers to quit.

tborden@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Czaplicki L et al. Tob Control. 2019 Jul 2; doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2018-054824.

This article was updated 7/17/2019.

Prescriptions for two drugs used to treat opioid addiction increased significantly from 2016 to 2018 for people on Medicare, according to a July 10 federal report.

About 174,000 Medicare beneficiaries received such a medication – either buprenorphine or naltrexone – to help them with recovery in 2018, according to the Office of Inspector General in the Department of Health & Human Services.

In addition, prescriptions for naloxone – the drug that can reverse an opioid overdose – spiked since 2016, rising 501% – and that is likely an underestimate because it doesn’t include doses of the nasal spray Medicare members might have received through local programs, the OIG said.

“For now, the numbers are going in the right direction,” said Miriam Anderson, lead investigator on the report. “But this is a national crisis and we must remain vigilant and continue to fight this epidemic and ensure that opioids are prescribed and used appropriately.”

During the 2 years studied, the threat of new addictions appeared to slow. Prescriptions for an opioid through Medicare Part D decreased by 11%. The numbers of the beneficiaries considered at serious risk for misuse or overdose ― either because they received extreme amounts of opioids or appeared to be “doctor shopping” – dropped 46%. And there were 51% fewer doctors or other providers flagged for prescribing opioids to patients at serious risk from 2016 to 2018.

The report says the OIG and other law enforcement agencies will investigate the highest-level prescribers for possible fraud and signs that some providers operate pill mills. The report mentions a physician in Florida who provided 104 high-risk Medicare patients with 2,619 opioid prescriptions.

It will be up to Medicare to follow up with patients whose opioid use suggests addiction, recreational use, or resale. In one case, a Pennsylvania woman received 10,728 oxycodone pills and 570 fentanyl patches from a single physician during 2018. A Medicare member in Alabama acquired 56 opioid prescriptions from 25 different prescribers within 1 year.

In a statement, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said: “Fighting the opioid epidemic has been a top priority for the Trump administration. We are encouraged by the OIG’s conclusion which finds significant progress has been made in our efforts to decrease opioid misuse while simultaneously increasing medication-assisted treatment in the Medicare Part D program.”

The agency points to recent efforts to curb opioid misuse including a 7-day limit on first-time opioid prescriptions, pharmacy alerts about Medicare beneficiaries who receive high doses of pain medication, and drug management programs that may restrict a patient’s supply. CMS says it does not use a “one-size-fits-all” approach. Medicare patients in long-term care facilities or hospice care and those in cancer treatment are exempt from the opioid-prescribing restrictions.

The opioid-prescribing limits are raising alarms among some Medicare recipients, especially those who qualify based on a long-term disability and deal with severe, chronic pain.

Jae Kennedy, PhD, a disability policy expert at Washington State University, Spokane, said cutting back on opioid prescriptions is generally a good development.

“But we hear from people in the disability community who feel like they’re being victimized by this new, very stringent set of dispensing limits,” said Dr. Kennedy. “People have been managing their pain, in some cases for many years without a problem, and now they’re being kind of criminalized by this new bureaucratic backlash.”

Ms. Anderson said the OIG agrees that “some patients need opioids and they should receive those needed for their condition. This report raises concerns that some patients may be receiving opioids above and beyond those needs.”

While most Medicare beneficiaries are 65 years or older, the 15% who are under 65 and disabled may be the key piece of this report. Dr. Kennedy’s research shows they are up to three times more likely to describe persistent pain than are other adults and 50% more likely to report opioid misuse. A 2017 OIG report found that 74% of Medicare beneficiaries at serious risk for addiction and overdose deaths were under age 65 years.

Dr. Kennedy said it’s good to see Medicare expanding access to medication-assisted treatment, known as MAT, for addiction, but the agency needs to make sure that more buprenorphine prescribers accept all patients, not just the ones who are easiest to manage. Patients with disabilities often need many different medications for multiple physical and mental health conditions.

“Saying, ‘Well, because you’ve got schizophrenia or manic depressive disorder, we can’t treat you,’ I think is discriminatory,” Dr. Kennedy said. “It’s happening with private buprenorphine prescribers in this country because there are so few.”

Americans 65 years or older have the lowest rates of opioid overdose deaths. Even so, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says the number of deaths among seniors increased by 279% from 1999 to 2017.

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente. WBUR, a public radio station owned by Boston University, is a member station of NPR.

Prescriptions for two drugs used to treat opioid addiction increased significantly from 2016 to 2018 for people on Medicare, according to a July 10 federal report.

About 174,000 Medicare beneficiaries received such a medication – either buprenorphine or naltrexone – to help them with recovery in 2018, according to the Office of Inspector General in the Department of Health & Human Services.

In addition, prescriptions for naloxone – the drug that can reverse an opioid overdose – spiked since 2016, rising 501% – and that is likely an underestimate because it doesn’t include doses of the nasal spray Medicare members might have received through local programs, the OIG said.

“For now, the numbers are going in the right direction,” said Miriam Anderson, lead investigator on the report. “But this is a national crisis and we must remain vigilant and continue to fight this epidemic and ensure that opioids are prescribed and used appropriately.”

During the 2 years studied, the threat of new addictions appeared to slow. Prescriptions for an opioid through Medicare Part D decreased by 11%. The numbers of the beneficiaries considered at serious risk for misuse or overdose ― either because they received extreme amounts of opioids or appeared to be “doctor shopping” – dropped 46%. And there were 51% fewer doctors or other providers flagged for prescribing opioids to patients at serious risk from 2016 to 2018.

The report says the OIG and other law enforcement agencies will investigate the highest-level prescribers for possible fraud and signs that some providers operate pill mills. The report mentions a physician in Florida who provided 104 high-risk Medicare patients with 2,619 opioid prescriptions.

It will be up to Medicare to follow up with patients whose opioid use suggests addiction, recreational use, or resale. In one case, a Pennsylvania woman received 10,728 oxycodone pills and 570 fentanyl patches from a single physician during 2018. A Medicare member in Alabama acquired 56 opioid prescriptions from 25 different prescribers within 1 year.

In a statement, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said: “Fighting the opioid epidemic has been a top priority for the Trump administration. We are encouraged by the OIG’s conclusion which finds significant progress has been made in our efforts to decrease opioid misuse while simultaneously increasing medication-assisted treatment in the Medicare Part D program.”

The agency points to recent efforts to curb opioid misuse including a 7-day limit on first-time opioid prescriptions, pharmacy alerts about Medicare beneficiaries who receive high doses of pain medication, and drug management programs that may restrict a patient’s supply. CMS says it does not use a “one-size-fits-all” approach. Medicare patients in long-term care facilities or hospice care and those in cancer treatment are exempt from the opioid-prescribing restrictions.

The opioid-prescribing limits are raising alarms among some Medicare recipients, especially those who qualify based on a long-term disability and deal with severe, chronic pain.

Jae Kennedy, PhD, a disability policy expert at Washington State University, Spokane, said cutting back on opioid prescriptions is generally a good development.

“But we hear from people in the disability community who feel like they’re being victimized by this new, very stringent set of dispensing limits,” said Dr. Kennedy. “People have been managing their pain, in some cases for many years without a problem, and now they’re being kind of criminalized by this new bureaucratic backlash.”

Ms. Anderson said the OIG agrees that “some patients need opioids and they should receive those needed for their condition. This report raises concerns that some patients may be receiving opioids above and beyond those needs.”

While most Medicare beneficiaries are 65 years or older, the 15% who are under 65 and disabled may be the key piece of this report. Dr. Kennedy’s research shows they are up to three times more likely to describe persistent pain than are other adults and 50% more likely to report opioid misuse. A 2017 OIG report found that 74% of Medicare beneficiaries at serious risk for addiction and overdose deaths were under age 65 years.

Dr. Kennedy said it’s good to see Medicare expanding access to medication-assisted treatment, known as MAT, for addiction, but the agency needs to make sure that more buprenorphine prescribers accept all patients, not just the ones who are easiest to manage. Patients with disabilities often need many different medications for multiple physical and mental health conditions.

“Saying, ‘Well, because you’ve got schizophrenia or manic depressive disorder, we can’t treat you,’ I think is discriminatory,” Dr. Kennedy said. “It’s happening with private buprenorphine prescribers in this country because there are so few.”

Americans 65 years or older have the lowest rates of opioid overdose deaths. Even so, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says the number of deaths among seniors increased by 279% from 1999 to 2017.

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente. WBUR, a public radio station owned by Boston University, is a member station of NPR.

Prescriptions for two drugs used to treat opioid addiction increased significantly from 2016 to 2018 for people on Medicare, according to a July 10 federal report.

About 174,000 Medicare beneficiaries received such a medication – either buprenorphine or naltrexone – to help them with recovery in 2018, according to the Office of Inspector General in the Department of Health & Human Services.

In addition, prescriptions for naloxone – the drug that can reverse an opioid overdose – spiked since 2016, rising 501% – and that is likely an underestimate because it doesn’t include doses of the nasal spray Medicare members might have received through local programs, the OIG said.

“For now, the numbers are going in the right direction,” said Miriam Anderson, lead investigator on the report. “But this is a national crisis and we must remain vigilant and continue to fight this epidemic and ensure that opioids are prescribed and used appropriately.”

During the 2 years studied, the threat of new addictions appeared to slow. Prescriptions for an opioid through Medicare Part D decreased by 11%. The numbers of the beneficiaries considered at serious risk for misuse or overdose ― either because they received extreme amounts of opioids or appeared to be “doctor shopping” – dropped 46%. And there were 51% fewer doctors or other providers flagged for prescribing opioids to patients at serious risk from 2016 to 2018.

The report says the OIG and other law enforcement agencies will investigate the highest-level prescribers for possible fraud and signs that some providers operate pill mills. The report mentions a physician in Florida who provided 104 high-risk Medicare patients with 2,619 opioid prescriptions.

It will be up to Medicare to follow up with patients whose opioid use suggests addiction, recreational use, or resale. In one case, a Pennsylvania woman received 10,728 oxycodone pills and 570 fentanyl patches from a single physician during 2018. A Medicare member in Alabama acquired 56 opioid prescriptions from 25 different prescribers within 1 year.

In a statement, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said: “Fighting the opioid epidemic has been a top priority for the Trump administration. We are encouraged by the OIG’s conclusion which finds significant progress has been made in our efforts to decrease opioid misuse while simultaneously increasing medication-assisted treatment in the Medicare Part D program.”

The agency points to recent efforts to curb opioid misuse including a 7-day limit on first-time opioid prescriptions, pharmacy alerts about Medicare beneficiaries who receive high doses of pain medication, and drug management programs that may restrict a patient’s supply. CMS says it does not use a “one-size-fits-all” approach. Medicare patients in long-term care facilities or hospice care and those in cancer treatment are exempt from the opioid-prescribing restrictions.

The opioid-prescribing limits are raising alarms among some Medicare recipients, especially those who qualify based on a long-term disability and deal with severe, chronic pain.

Jae Kennedy, PhD, a disability policy expert at Washington State University, Spokane, said cutting back on opioid prescriptions is generally a good development.

“But we hear from people in the disability community who feel like they’re being victimized by this new, very stringent set of dispensing limits,” said Dr. Kennedy. “People have been managing their pain, in some cases for many years without a problem, and now they’re being kind of criminalized by this new bureaucratic backlash.”

Ms. Anderson said the OIG agrees that “some patients need opioids and they should receive those needed for their condition. This report raises concerns that some patients may be receiving opioids above and beyond those needs.”

While most Medicare beneficiaries are 65 years or older, the 15% who are under 65 and disabled may be the key piece of this report. Dr. Kennedy’s research shows they are up to three times more likely to describe persistent pain than are other adults and 50% more likely to report opioid misuse. A 2017 OIG report found that 74% of Medicare beneficiaries at serious risk for addiction and overdose deaths were under age 65 years.

Dr. Kennedy said it’s good to see Medicare expanding access to medication-assisted treatment, known as MAT, for addiction, but the agency needs to make sure that more buprenorphine prescribers accept all patients, not just the ones who are easiest to manage. Patients with disabilities often need many different medications for multiple physical and mental health conditions.

“Saying, ‘Well, because you’ve got schizophrenia or manic depressive disorder, we can’t treat you,’ I think is discriminatory,” Dr. Kennedy said. “It’s happening with private buprenorphine prescribers in this country because there are so few.”

Americans 65 years or older have the lowest rates of opioid overdose deaths. Even so, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says the number of deaths among seniors increased by 279% from 1999 to 2017.

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente. WBUR, a public radio station owned by Boston University, is a member station of NPR.

Children exposed to opioids via maternal use during pregnancy were at increased risk of perinatal and postnatal physical and neurodevelopmental disabilities, according to data from more than 8,000 children.

Antonio_Diaz/Thinkstock

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.

Children exposed to opioids via maternal use during pregnancy were at increased risk of perinatal and postnatal physical and neurodevelopmental disabilities, according to data from more than 8,000 children.

Antonio_Diaz/Thinkstock

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.

Children exposed to opioids via maternal use during pregnancy were at increased risk of perinatal and postnatal physical and neurodevelopmental disabilities, according to data from more than 8,000 children.

Antonio_Diaz/Thinkstock

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.