Adam J Rose1,2, Ryan McBain1, Megan S Schuler1, Marc R LaRochelle2, David A Ganz3,4,5, Vikram Kilambi1, Bradley D Stein6,7, Dana Bernson8, Kenneth Kwan Ho Chui9, Thomas Land10, Alexander Y Walley2, Thomas J Stopka9,11. 1. RAND Corporation, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Section of General Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California. 4. David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California. 5. Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California. 6. RAND Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 7. School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 8. Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts. 9. School of Medicine, Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts. 10. School of Medicine, University of Massachusetts, Worcester, Massachusetts. 11. Tufts Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine the effect of age on the likelihood of PIP of opioids and the effect of PIP on adverse outcomes. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Data from multiple state agencies in Massachusetts from 2011 to 2015. PARTICIPANTS: Adult Massachusetts residents (N=3,078,163) who received at least one prescription opioid during the study period; approximately half (1,589,365) aged 50 and older. MEASUREMENTS: We measured exposure to 5 types of PIP: high-dose opioids, coprescription with benzodiazepines, multiple opioid prescribers, multiple opioid pharmacies, and continuous opioid therapy without a pain diagnosis. We examined 3 adverse outcomes: nonfatal opioid overdose, fatal opioid overdose, and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: The rate of any PIP increased with age, from 2% of individuals age 18 to 29 to 14% of those aged 50 and older. Older adults also had higher rates of exposure to 2 or more different types of PIP (40-49, 2.5%; 50-69, 5%; ≥70, 4%). Of covariates assessed, older age was the greatest predictor of PIP. In analyses stratified according to age, any PIP and specific types of PIP were associated with nonfatal overdose, fatal overdose, and all-cause mortality in younger and older adults. CONCLUSION: Older adults are more likely to be exposed to PIP, which increases their risk of adverse events. Strategies to reduce exposure to PIP and to improve outcomes in those already exposed will be instrumental to addressing the opioid crisis in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:128-132, 2019.
OBJECTIVES: To examine the effect of age on the likelihood of PIP of opioids and the effect of PIP on adverse outcomes. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Data from multiple state agencies in Massachusetts from 2011 to 2015. PARTICIPANTS: Adult Massachusetts residents (N=3,078,163) who received at least one prescription opioid during the study period; approximately half (1,589,365) aged 50 and older. MEASUREMENTS: We measured exposure to 5 types of PIP: high-dose opioids, coprescription with benzodiazepines, multiple opioid prescribers, multiple opioid pharmacies, and continuous opioid therapy without a pain diagnosis. We examined 3 adverse outcomes: nonfatal opioid overdose, fatal opioid overdose, and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: The rate of any PIP increased with age, from 2% of individuals age 18 to 29 to 14% of those aged 50 and older. Older adults also had higher rates of exposure to 2 or more different types of PIP (40-49, 2.5%; 50-69, 5%; ≥70, 4%). Of covariates assessed, older age was the greatest predictor of PIP. In analyses stratified according to age, any PIP and specific types of PIP were associated with nonfatal overdose, fatal overdose, and all-cause mortality in younger and older adults. CONCLUSION: Older adults are more likely to be exposed to PIP, which increases their risk of adverse events. Strategies to reduce exposure to PIP and to improve outcomes in those already exposed will be instrumental to addressing the opioid crisis in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:128-132, 2019.
Authors: Sara E Heins; Mark J Sorbero; Christopher M Jones; Andrew W Dick; Bradley D Stein Journal: Subst Use Misuse Date: 2018-01-05 Impact factor: 2.164
Authors: Adam J Rose; Dana Bernson; Kenneth Kwan Ho Chui; Thomas Land; Alexander Y Walley; Marc R LaRochelle; Bradley D Stein; Thomas J Stopka Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-06-14 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Amy S B Bohnert; Marcia Valenstein; Matthew J Bair; Dara Ganoczy; John F McCarthy; Mark A Ilgen; Frederic C Blow Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-04-06 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jane A Gwira Baumblatt; Caleb Wiedeman; John R Dunn; William Schaffner; Leonard J Paulozzi; Timothy F Jones Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Kate M Dunn; Kathleen W Saunders; Carolyn M Rutter; Caleb J Banta-Green; Joseph O Merrill; Mark D Sullivan; Constance M Weisner; Michael J Silverberg; Cynthia I Campbell; Bruce M Psaty; Michael Von Korff Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2010-01-19 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Thomas J Stopka; Harsha Amaravadi; Anna R Kaplan; Rachel Hoh; Dana Bernson; Kenneth K H Chui; Thomas Land; Alexander Y Walley; Marc R LaRochelle; Adam J Rose Journal: Int J Drug Policy Date: 2019-04-11
Authors: Bradley D Stein; Flora Sheng; Erin A Taylor; Andrew W Dick; Mark Sorbero; Rosalie Liccardo Pacula Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2021-12-28 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Derrick C Gibson; Mukaila A Raji; Holly M Holmes; Jacques G Baillargeon; Yong-Fang Kuo Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2022-02-05 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: Mina Hong; Sarah Seymour; Thomas J Stopka; Lane Bandanza; Erin Crocker; Allison Morgan; Leo Beletsky Journal: J Addict Med Date: 2022 May-Jun 01 Impact factor: 4.647
Authors: Sara E Hallvik; Nazanin Dameshghi; Sanae El Ibrahimi; Michelle A Hendricks; Christi Hildebran; Carissa J Bishop; Scott G Weiner Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2021-05-10 Impact factor: 2.732
Authors: Bradley D Stein; Rosanna Smart; Christopher M Jones; Flora Sheng; David Powell; Mark Sorbero Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-02-17 Impact factor: 6.473