4.2 Article

Trends in long-term opioid therapy for chronic non-cancer pain

Journal

PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY AND DRUG SAFETY
Volume 18, Issue 12, Pages 1166-1175

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pds.1833

Keywords

pain; opioids; trends; analgesic; oxycodone; morphine; hydrocodone; prevalence

Funding

  1. NIDA [R01 DA022557]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective To report trends and characteristics of long-term opioid use for non-cancer pain. Methods CONSORT (CONsortium to Study Opioid Risks and Trends) includes adult enrollees of two health plans serving over I per cent of the US population. Using automated data, we constructed episodes of opioid use between 1997 and 2005. We estimated age-sex standardized rates of opioid use episodes beginning in each year (incident) and on-going in each year (prevalent), and the per cent change in rates annualized (PCA) over the 9-year period. Long-term episodes were defined as > 90 days with 120+ days supply or 10+ opioid prescriptions in a given year. Results Over the study period, incident long-term use increased from 8.5 to 12.1 per 1000 at Group Health (GH) (6.0% PCA), and 6.3 to 8.6 per 1000 at Kaiser Permanente of Northern California (KPNC) (5.5% PCA). Prevalent long-term use doubled from 23.9 to 46.8 per 1000 at GH (8.5% PCA), and 21.5 to 39.2 per 1000 at KPNC (8.1% PCA). Non-Schedule II opioids were the most commonly used opioid among patients engaged in long-term opioid therapy, particularly at KPNC. Long-term use of Schedule II opioids also increased substantially at both health plans. Among prevalent long-term users in 2005, 28.6% at GH and 30.2% at KPNC were also regular users of sedative hypnotics. Conclusion Long-term opioid therapy for non-cancer pain is increasingly prevalent, but the benefits and risks associated with such therapy are inadequately understood. Concurrent use of opioids and sedative-hypnotics was unexpectedly common and deserves further study. Copyright (C) 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available