Thomas J Stopka1, Harsha Amaravadi2, Anna R Kaplan2, Rachel Hoh2, Dana Bernson3, Kenneth K H Chui2, Thomas Land4, Alexander Y Walley5, Marc R LaRochelle6, Adam J Rose7. 1. Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, United States. Electronic address: thomas.stopka@tufts.edu. 2. Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, United States. 3. Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Boston, MA, United States. 4. University of Massachusetts Medical School, Division of Clinical Informatics, Worcester, MA, United States (T. Land). 5. Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Boston, MA, United States; Boston University School of Medicine/Boston Medical Center, Boston, MA, United States. 6. Boston University School of Medicine/Boston Medical Center, Boston, MA, United States. 7. Boston University School of Medicine/Boston Medical Center, Boston, MA, United States; RAND Corporation, Boston, MA, United States.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Opioid overdose deaths quintupled in Massachusetts between 2000 and 2016. Potentially inappropriate opioid prescribing practices (PIP) are associated with increases in overdoses. The purpose of this study was to conduct spatial epidemiological analyses of novel comprehensively linked data to identify overdose and PIP hotspots. METHODS: Sixteen administrative datasets, including prescription monitoring, medical claims, vital statistics, and medical examiner data, covering >98% of Massachusetts residents between 2011-2015, were linked in 2017 to better investigate the opioid epidemic. PIP was defined by six measures: ≥100 morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs), co-prescription of benzodiazepines and opioids, cash purchases of opioid prescriptions, opioid prescriptions without a recorded pain diagnosis, and opioid prescriptions through multiple prescribers or pharmacies. Using spatial autocorrelation and cluster analyses, overdose and PIP hotspots were identified among 538 ZIP codes. RESULTS: More than half of the adult population (n = 3,143,817, ages 18 and older) were prescribed opioids. Nearly all ZIP codes showed increasing rates of overdose over time. Overdose clusters were identified in Worcester, Northampton, Lee/Tyringham, Wareham/Bourne, Lynn, and Revere/Chelsea (Getis-Ord Gi*; p < 0.05). Large PIP clusters for ≥100 MMEs and prescription without pain diagnosis were identified in Western Massachusetts; and smaller clusters for multiple prescribers in Nantucket, Berkshire, and Hampden Counties (p < 0.05). Co-prescriptions and cash payment clusters were localized and nearly identical (p < 0.05). Overlap in PIP and overdose clusters was identified in Cape Cod and Berkshire County. However, we also found contradictory patterns in overdose and PIP hotspots. CONCLUSIONS: Overdose and PIP hotspots were identified, as well as regions where the two overlapped, and where they diverged. Results indicate that PIP clustering alone does not explain overdose clustering patterns. Our findings can inform public health policy decisions at the local level, which include a focus on PIP and misuse of heroin and fentanyl that aim to curb opioid overdoses.
INTRODUCTION:Opioid overdose deaths quintupled in Massachusetts between 2000 and 2016. Potentially inappropriate opioid prescribing practices (PIP) are associated with increases in overdoses. The purpose of this study was to conduct spatial epidemiological analyses of novel comprehensively linked data to identify overdose and PIP hotspots. METHODS: Sixteen administrative datasets, including prescription monitoring, medical claims, vital statistics, and medical examiner data, covering >98% of Massachusetts residents between 2011-2015, were linked in 2017 to better investigate the opioid epidemic. PIP was defined by six measures: ≥100 morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs), co-prescription of benzodiazepines and opioids, cash purchases of opioid prescriptions, opioid prescriptions without a recorded pain diagnosis, and opioid prescriptions through multiple prescribers or pharmacies. Using spatial autocorrelation and cluster analyses, overdose and PIP hotspots were identified among 538 ZIP codes. RESULTS: More than half of the adult population (n = 3,143,817, ages 18 and older) were prescribed opioids. Nearly all ZIP codes showed increasing rates of overdose over time. Overdose clusters were identified in Worcester, Northampton, Lee/Tyringham, Wareham/Bourne, Lynn, and Revere/Chelsea (Getis-Ord Gi*; p < 0.05). Large PIP clusters for ≥100 MMEs and prescription without pain diagnosis were identified in Western Massachusetts; and smaller clusters for multiple prescribers in Nantucket, Berkshire, and Hampden Counties (p < 0.05). Co-prescriptions and cash payment clusters were localized and nearly identical (p < 0.05). Overlap in PIP and overdose clusters was identified in Cape Cod and Berkshire County. However, we also found contradictory patterns in overdose and PIP hotspots. CONCLUSIONS:Overdose and PIP hotspots were identified, as well as regions where the two overlapped, and where they diverged. Results indicate that PIP clustering alone does not explain overdose clustering patterns. Our findings can inform public health policy decisions at the local level, which include a focus on PIP and misuse of heroin and fentanyl that aim to curb opioid overdoses.
Authors: Paula A Rochon; Christopher J Lane; Susan E Bronskill; Kathy Sykora; Geoffrey M Anderson; Muhammad M Mamdani; Jerry H Gurwitz; Irfan A Dhalla Journal: Drugs Aging Date: 2004 Impact factor: 3.923
Authors: Andrew Kolodny; David T Courtwright; Catherine S Hwang; Peter Kreiner; John L Eadie; Thomas W Clark; G Caleb Alexander Journal: Annu Rev Public Health Date: 2015-01-12 Impact factor: 21.981
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: Adam J Rose; Ryan McBain; Megan S Schuler; Marc R LaRochelle; David A Ganz; Vikram Kilambi; Bradley D Stein; Dana Bernson; Kenneth Kwan Ho Chui; Thomas Land; Alexander Y Walley; Thomas J Stopka Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2018-11-24 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Brandon D L Marshall; Jesse L Yedinak; Jonathan Goyer; Traci C Green; Jennifer A Koziol; Nicole Alexander-Scott Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2017-09-21 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Patrick Tighe; François Modave; MaryBeth Horodyski; Matthew Marsik; G Lipori; Roger Fillingim; Hui Hu; Jennifer Hagen Journal: Pain Med Date: 2020-08-01 Impact factor: 3.750
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: Wei-Hsuan Lo-Ciganic; Julie M Donohue; Eric G Hulsey; Susan Barnes; Yuan Li; Courtney C Kuza; Qingnan Yang; Jeanine Buchanich; James L Huang; Christina Mair; Debbie L Wilson; Walid F Gellad Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-03-18 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Miguel Angel Galan-Martin; Federico Montero-Cuadrado; Enrique Lluch-Girbes; María Carmen Coca-López; Agustín Mayo-Iscar; Antonio Cuesta-Vargas Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2020-04-22 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Andres Hernandez; Adam J Branscum; Jingjing Li; Neil J MacKinnon; Ana L Hincapie; Diego F Cuadros Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-03-09 Impact factor: 4.379