PURPOSE: A key challenge regarding the current opioid epidemic is understanding how concerns regarding opioid-related harms affect access to pain management, an essential element of cancer care. In certain regions of the United States where disproportionately high cancer mortality and opioid fatality rates coexist (such as southwest Virginia in central Appalachia), this dilemma is particularly pronounced. METHODS: This longitudinal, exploratory, secondary analysis used the Commonwealth of Virginia All Payer Claims Database to describe prescription opioid medication (POM) prescribing patterns and potential harms for adult patients with cancer living in rural southwest Virginia between 2011 and 2015. Descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were conducted at the patient, prescriber, and prescription levels to identify patterns and predictors of POM prescribing and potential harms. To explore geographic patterns, choropleth and heat maps were created. RESULTS: Of the total sample of patients with cancer (n = 4,324), less than 25% were prescribed a Controlled Substance Schedule II POM at least three times in any study year. More than 60% of patients never received a Controlled Substance Schedule II POM prescription. Six hundred fifty-two patients (15.1%) experienced 1,599 hospitalizations for any reason; 10 or fewer patients were admitted for 11 opioid use disorder-related hospitalizations. The main findings suggest potential undertreatment of cancer-related pain; no difference in risk for opioid-related hospitalization on the basis of frequency of POM prescriptions; and geographic disparities where opioid overdoses are occurring versus where POM prescription use is highest. CONCLUSION: These findings have significant opioid policy and practice implications related to the need for cancer-specific prescribing guidelines, how to optimally allocate health delivery services, and the urgent need to improve data interoperability and access related to POMs.
PURPOSE: A key challenge regarding the current opioid epidemic is understanding how concerns regarding opioid-related harms affect access to pain management, an essential element of cancer care. In certain regions of the United States where disproportionately high cancer mortality and opioid fatality rates coexist (such as southwest Virginia in central Appalachia), this dilemma is particularly pronounced. METHODS: This longitudinal, exploratory, secondary analysis used the Commonwealth of Virginia All Payer Claims Database to describe prescription opioid medication (POM) prescribing patterns and potential harms for adult patients with cancer living in rural southwest Virginia between 2011 and 2015. Descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were conducted at the patient, prescriber, and prescription levels to identify patterns and predictors of POM prescribing and potential harms. To explore geographic patterns, choropleth and heat maps were created. RESULTS: Of the total sample of patients with cancer (n = 4,324), less than 25% were prescribed a Controlled Substance Schedule II POM at least three times in any study year. More than 60% of patients never received a Controlled Substance Schedule II POM prescription. Six hundred fifty-two patients (15.1%) experienced 1,599 hospitalizations for any reason; 10 or fewer patients were admitted for 11 opioid use disorder-related hospitalizations. The main findings suggest potential undertreatment of cancer-related pain; no difference in risk for opioid-related hospitalization on the basis of frequency of POM prescriptions; and geographic disparities where opioid overdoses are occurring versus where POM prescription use is highest. CONCLUSION: These findings have significant opioid policy and practice implications related to the need for cancer-specific prescribing guidelines, how to optimally allocate health delivery services, and the urgent need to improve data interoperability and access related to POMs.
Authors: Bethea A Kleykamp; Robert H Dworkin; Dennis C Turk; Zubin Bhagwagar; Penney Cowan; Christopher Eccleston; Susan S Ellenberg; Scott R Evans; John T Farrar; Roy L Freeman; Louis P Garrison; Jennifer S Gewandter; Veeraindar Goli; Smriti Iyengar; Alejandro R Jadad; Mark P Jensen; Roderick Junor; Nathaniel P Katz; J Patrick Kesslak; Ernest A Kopecky; Dmitri Lissin; John D Markman; Michael P McDermott; Philip J Mease; Alec B O'Connor; Kushang V Patel; Srinivasa N Raja; Michael C Rowbotham; Cristina Sampaio; Jasvinder A Singh; Ilona Steigerwald; Vibeke Strand; Leslie A Tive; Jeffrey Tobias; Ajay D Wasan; Hilary D Wilson Journal: Pain Date: 2021-09-09 Impact factor: 7.926
Authors: Christine Buttorff; George S Wang; Gregory J Tung; Asa Wilks; Daniel Schwam; Rosalie Liccardo Pacula Journal: Med Care Res Rev Date: 2021-12-22 Impact factor: 2.971
Authors: Joosun Shin; Kate Oppegaard; Alejandra Calvo-Schimmel; Carolyn Harris; Bruce A Cooper; Steven M Paul; Yvette P Conley; Marilyn J Hammer; Frances Cartwright; Kord M Kober; Jon D Levine; Christine Miaskowski Journal: Cancer Nurs Date: 2022-04-12 Impact factor: 2.760
Authors: Hailey W Bulls; Lindsay F Bell; Steven R Orris; Burel R Goodin; Jane M Liebschutz; Antoinette Wozniak; Jessica S Merlin; Yael Schenker Journal: Cancer Date: 2021-05-27 Impact factor: 6.921