BACKGROUND: Unintentional overdose involving opioid analgesics is a leading cause of injury-related death in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility and effect of implementing naloxone prescription to patients prescribed opioids for chronic pain. DESIGN: 2-year nonrandomized intervention study. SETTING: 6 safety-net primary care clinics in San Francisco, California. PARTICIPANTS: 1985 adults receiving long-term opioid therapy for pain. INTERVENTION: Providers and clinic staff were trained and supported in naloxone prescribing. MEASUREMENTS: Outcomes were proportion of patients prescribed naloxone, opioid-related emergency department (ED) visits, and prescribed opioid dose based on chart review. RESULTS: 38.2% of 1985 patients receiving long-term opioids were prescribed naloxone. Patients prescribed higher doses of opioids and with an opioid-related ED visit in the past 12 months were independently more likely to be prescribed naloxone. Patients who received a naloxone prescription had 47% fewer opioid-related ED visits per month in the 6 months after receipt of the prescription (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.53 [95% CI, 0.34 to 0.83]; P = 0.005) and 63% fewer visits after 1 year (IRR, 0.37 [CI, 0.22 to 0.64]; P < 0.001) compared with patients who did not receive naloxone. There was no net change over time in opioid dose among those who received naloxone and those who did not (IRR, 1.03 [CI, 0.91 to 1.27]; P = 0.61). LIMITATION: Results are observational and may not be generalizable beyond safety-net settings. CONCLUSION: Naloxone can be coprescribed to primary care patients prescribed opioids for pain. When advised to offer naloxone to all patients receiving opioids, providers may prioritize those with established risk factors. Providing naloxone in primary care settings may have ancillary benefits, such as reducing opioid-related adverse events. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.
BACKGROUND: Unintentional overdose involving opioid analgesics is a leading cause of injury-related death in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility and effect of implementing naloxone prescription to patients prescribed opioids for chronic pain. DESIGN: 2-year nonrandomized intervention study. SETTING: 6 safety-net primary care clinics in San Francisco, California. PARTICIPANTS: 1985 adults receiving long-term opioid therapy for pain. INTERVENTION: Providers and clinic staff were trained and supported in naloxone prescribing. MEASUREMENTS: Outcomes were proportion of patients prescribed naloxone, opioid-related emergency department (ED) visits, and prescribed opioid dose based on chart review. RESULTS: 38.2% of 1985 patients receiving long-term opioids were prescribed naloxone. Patients prescribed higher doses of opioids and with an opioid-related ED visit in the past 12 months were independently more likely to be prescribed naloxone. Patients who received a naloxone prescription had 47% fewer opioid-related ED visits per month in the 6 months after receipt of the prescription (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.53 [95% CI, 0.34 to 0.83]; P = 0.005) and 63% fewer visits after 1 year (IRR, 0.37 [CI, 0.22 to 0.64]; P < 0.001) compared with patients who did not receive naloxone. There was no net change over time in opioid dose among those who received naloxone and those who did not (IRR, 1.03 [CI, 0.91 to 1.27]; P = 0.61). LIMITATION: Results are observational and may not be generalizable beyond safety-net settings. CONCLUSION:Naloxone can be coprescribed to primary care patients prescribed opioids for pain. When advised to offer naloxone to all patients receiving opioids, providers may prioritize those with established risk factors. Providing naloxone in primary care settings may have ancillary benefits, such as reducing opioid-related adverse events. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.
Authors: Su Albert; Fred W Brason; Catherine K Sanford; Nabarun Dasgupta; Jim Graham; Beth Lovette Journal: Pain Med Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 3.750
Authors: Karen H Seal; Robert Thawley; Lauren Gee; Joshua Bamberger; Alex H Kral; Dan Ciccarone; Moher Downing; Brian R Edlin Journal: J Urban Health Date: 2005-05-04 Impact factor: 3.671
Authors: Michael Von Korff; Michael Von Korff; Kathleen Saunders; Gary Thomas Ray; Denise Boudreau; Cynthia Campbell; Joseph Merrill; Mark D Sullivan; Carolyn M Rutter; Michael J Silverberg; Caleb Banta-Green; Constance Weisner Journal: Clin J Pain Date: 2008 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 3.442
Authors: Christopher M Jones; Joseph Logan; R Matthew Gladden; Michele K Bohm Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2015-07-10 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Wilson M Compton; Christopher M Jones; Grant T Baldwin; Frances M Harding; Carlos Blanco; Eric M Wargo Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Shane R Mueller; Stephen Koester; Jason M Glanz; Edward M Gardner; Ingrid A Binswanger Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2016-10-31 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Andrea Jakubowski; Alexander Pappas; Lee Isaacsohn; Felipe Castillo; Mariya Masyukova; Richard Silvera; Louisa Holaday; Evan Rausch; Sameen Farooq; Keith T Veltri; Chinazo O Cunningham; Marcus A Bachhuber Journal: Subst Abus Date: 2018-11-26 Impact factor: 3.716
Authors: Traci C Green; Corey Davis; Ziming Xuan; Alexander Y Walley; Jeffrey Bratberg Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2020-04-16 Impact factor: 9.308