4.1 Article

Opioid prescribing by oral and maxillofacial surgeons in the United States, 2016-2019

Journal

JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH DENTISTRY
Volume 82, Issue 4, Pages 491-494

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jphd.12544

Keywords

dental practice pattern; opioid; oral and maxillofacial surgeons

Funding

  1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) [R01 HS025177]
  2. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) [U01 FD007151]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study describes the trends in opioid prescribing among oral and maxillofacial surgeons (OMFS) from 2016 to 2019. The results show a decrease in opioid prescribing, especially high-risk prescribing, by OMFS. However, targeted interventions are needed in certain areas.
Objective To describe opioid prescribing trends among oral and maxillofacial surgeons (OMFS). Methods Prescriptions by OMFS were identified from IQVIA Longitudinal Prescription Dataset, 2016-2019. OMFS-based, patient-based and population-based prescribing rates and changes in high-risk opioid prescribing were calculated annually. We used linear regression to describe trends. Results There were 13.9 million opioid prescriptions among 12.5 million patients (627 prescriptions/OMFS/year). Hydrocodone and oxycodone decreased by 20.9% and 39.2% (p < 0.05), while tramadol and codeine increased by 24.3% and 6.1% (p < 0.05), respectively. Opioid prescribing rates significantly decreased by 27 prescriptions/OMFS/year, 18.6 patients/OMFS/year and by 0.9 prescriptions/100,000 population/year (p < 0.05 for all). From 2016 to 2019, the proportion of opioids >3 days decreased by 54.2% (p < 0.05) and prescriptions >= 50 MME/day decreased by 66.3% (p < 0.05). Although the number of opioid prescriptions by OMFS decreased in most states, 12% of states experienced increases. Conclusion Opioid prescribing, especially high-risk prescribing, by OMFS has decreased. However, targeted interventions are warranted in some areas.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available