Benjamin C Sun1, Christina J Charlesworth2, Nicoleta Lupulescu-Mann2, Jenny I Young2, Hyunjee Kim2, Daniel M Hartung3, Richard A Deyo4, K John McConnell5. 1. Center for Policy Research-Emergency Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR. Electronic address: sunb@ohsu.edu. 2. Center for Health Systems Effectiveness, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR. 3. College of Pharmacy, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; College of Pharmacy, Oregon State University, Portland, OR. 4. Department of Family Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Oregon Institute of Occupational Health Sciences, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR. 5. Center for Policy Research-Emergency Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Center for Health Systems Effectiveness, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR.
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: We assess whether an automated prescription drug monitoring program intervention in emergency department (ED) settings is associated with reductions in opioid prescribing and quantities. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of ED visits by Medicaid beneficiaries. We assessed the staggered implementation (pre-post) of automated prescription drug monitoring program queries at 86 EDs in Washington State from January 1, 2013, to September 30, 2015. The outcomes included any opioid prescribed within 1 day of the index ED visit and total dispensed morphine milligram equivalents. The exposure was the automated prescription drug monitoring program query intervention. We assessed program effects stratified by previous high-risk opioid use. We performed multiple sensitivity analyses, including restriction to pain-related visits, restriction to visits with a confirmed prescription drug monitoring program query, and assessment of 6 specific opioid high-risk indicators. RESULTS: The study included 1,187,237 qualifying ED visits (898,162 preintervention; 289,075 postintervention). Compared with the preintervention period, automated prescription drug monitoring program queries were not significantly associated with reductions in the proportion of visits with opioid prescribing (5.8 per 1,000 encounters; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.11 to 11.8) or the amount of prescribed morphine milligram equivalents (difference 2.66; 95% CI -0.15 to 5.48). There was no evidence of selective reduction in patients with previous high-risk opioid use (1.2 per 1,000 encounters, 95% CI -9.5 to 12.0; morphine milligram equivalents 1.22, 95% CI -3.39 to 5.82). The lack of a selective reduction in high-risk patients was robust to all sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: An automated prescription drug monitoring program query intervention was not associated with reductions in ED opioid prescribing or quantities, even in patients with previous high-risk opioid use.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: We assess whether an automated prescription drug monitoring program intervention in emergency department (ED) settings is associated with reductions in opioid prescribing and quantities. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of ED visits by Medicaid beneficiaries. We assessed the staggered implementation (pre-post) of automated prescription drug monitoring program queries at 86 EDs in Washington State from January 1, 2013, to September 30, 2015. The outcomes included any opioid prescribed within 1 day of the index ED visit and total dispensed morphine milligram equivalents. The exposure was the automated prescription drug monitoring program query intervention. We assessed program effects stratified by previous high-risk opioid use. We performed multiple sensitivity analyses, including restriction to pain-related visits, restriction to visits with a confirmed prescription drug monitoring program query, and assessment of 6 specific opioid high-risk indicators. RESULTS: The study included 1,187,237 qualifying ED visits (898,162 preintervention; 289,075 postintervention). Compared with the preintervention period, automated prescription drug monitoring program queries were not significantly associated with reductions in the proportion of visits with opioid prescribing (5.8 per 1,000 encounters; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.11 to 11.8) or the amount of prescribed morphine milligram equivalents (difference 2.66; 95% CI -0.15 to 5.48). There was no evidence of selective reduction in patients with previous high-risk opioid use (1.2 per 1,000 encounters, 95% CI -9.5 to 12.0; morphine milligram equivalents 1.22, 95% CI -3.39 to 5.82). The lack of a selective reduction in high-risk patients was robust to all sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: An automated prescription drug monitoring program query intervention was not associated with reductions in ED opioid prescribing or quantities, even in patients with previous high-risk opioid use.
Authors: Richard Brown; Moira R Riley; Lydia Ulrich; Ellen Percy Kraly; Paul Jenkins; Nicole L Krupa; Anne Gadomski Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2017-06-23 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Margaret B Greenwood-Ericksen; Sabrina J Poon; Lewis S Nelson; Scott G Weiner; Jeremiah D Schuur Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2015-11-25 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Scott G Weiner; Christopher A Griggs; Patricia M Mitchell; Breanne K Langlois; Franklin D Friedman; Rebecca L Moore; Shuo Cheng Lin; Kerrie P Nelson; James A Feldman Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2013-07-09 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Zachary F Meisel; Nicoleta Lupulescu-Mann; Christina J Charlesworth; Hyunjee Kim; Benjamin C Sun Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2019-06-20 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Victor Puac-Polanco; Stanford Chihuri; David S Fink; Magdalena Cerdá; Katherine M Keyes; Guohua Li Journal: Epidemiol Rev Date: 2020-01-31 Impact factor: 6.222
Authors: Yuhua Bao; Katherine Wen; Phyllis Johnson; Philip J Jeng; Zachary F Meisel; Bruce R Schackman Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Michael J Ward; Diwas Kc; Cathy A Jenkins; Dandan Liu; Amit Padaki; Jesse M Pines Journal: Am J Emerg Med Date: 2018-07-31 Impact factor: 2.469
Authors: Juan Carlos C Montoy; Zlatan Coralic; Andrew A Herring; Eben J Clattenburg; Maria C Raven Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2020-04-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Benjamin C Sun; Nicoleta Lupulescu-Mann; Christina J Charlesworth; Hyunjee Kim; Daniel M Hartung; Richard A Deyo; K John McConnell Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2018-08-17