Co-utilization of opioids and nonbenzodiazepine hypnotic drugs in U.S. ambulatory care visits, 2006–2016

Objective(s): This study aimed to characterize the co-utilization of non-benzodiazepine sedative ‘Z’-drugs with opioids at ambulatory care visits in the United States. Design: A cross-sectional analysis of the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) from 2006 to 2016 was completed. Setting and participants: Ambulatory care visits in the United States involving adult patients with an opioid prescription were included in the analysis. Outcome measures: The primary outcome was initiation or continuation of a Z-drug (zolpidem, eszopiclone, or zaleplon) in a patient visit in conjunction with an opioid medication. Results: The authors analyzed 564,090,296 visits (weighted from a sample of 28,773) with a reported opioid prescription. Co-utilization of opioids with Z-drugs fluctuated during the study period beginning at 4.0% in 2006 (95% CI 2.2%–5.7%), 6.3% in 2012 (3.7%–8.9%), and 4.7% in 2016 (2.8%–6.5%). Among all opioid visits in the study period, co-utilization with a Z-drug was not significantly different among female patients compared with male patients (5.26% vs. 4.63%, P = 0.26). Among visits with concomitant opioid and Z-drugs, 7.0% reported new initiation of both medications in the same visit. Conclusion: At ambulatory care visits between 2006 and 2016, co-utilization of opioids and Z-drugs fluctuated with some differences by sex. Major regulatory advisories and policy changes during this period may have contributed to these varying rates of utilization. Additional work is needed to identify predictors of co-utilization and downstream consequences more widely

Changes in Opioid Use After Florida's Restriction Law for Acute Pain Prescriptions

Several US states have enacted laws to limit either opioid prescription days’ supply or morphine milligram equivalents for the treatment of acute pain. On July 1, 2018, Florida implemented House Bill 21 (HB21), which limits the days’ supply of Schedule II opioids to 3 days for acute pain prescriptions. Prescribers can extend to a 7-day supply if they document an exception. This quality improvement study aims to assess the outcomes associated with Florida’s restriction law on opioid prescribing by evaluating the number of new opioid users and the number of units dispensed per prescription before and after the policy change

Trends in Use of Prescription Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Medications before vs after Implementation of a Florida Law Restricting Opioid Prescribing for Acute Pain

Importance: Previous research has shown an immediate reduction in new opioid users and use after implementation of the opioid supply restriction laws. Assessment of the association between opioid restrictions and alternative treatment options, such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), is needed to evaluate potential unintended consequences for patients requiring analgesia. Objective: To evaluate the association between an opioid restriction law in Florida and use of prescription NSAIDs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This quality improvement study used interrupted time series analyses accounting for autocorrelation to estimate immediate and trend changes in the prescribing and use of prescription NSAIDs in Florida before and after implementation of a state law limiting opioid prescriptions to a 3-day supply. Participants were enrollees in a single private health plan of a large university and health system employer in Florida from January 2015 to June 2019. Exposures: Prescriptions for NSAIDs, ascertained from pharmacy claims data. Main Outcomes and Measures: The following outcomes were calculated monthly per 1000 plan enrollees: (1) number of NSAID users; (2) mean days' supply of NSAIDs per prescription; and (3) mean number of NSAID prescriptions. Individuals were classified as NSAID users if they had at least 1 NSAID prescription in a given month. Analysis was stratified by route of NSAID administration (oral or nonoral). Results: Among 46783 NSAID users with 79089 NSAID prescriptions during the study period, the median age was 47 years (interquartile range, 35-57 years). After implementation of the opioid restriction law, the number of NSAID users immediately increased, but the difference was not significant (change, 0.82 per 1000 patients; 95% CI, -0.67 to 2.30 per 1000 patients). No significant change in the days' supply of oral NSAID users occurred (change, 0.21 days per prescription; 95% CI, -1.66 to 2.08 days per prescription). Before implementation of the law, there was a nonsignificant decreasing trend in NSAID prescriptions (rate of change, -0.03 per month per 1000 enrollees; 95% CI, -0.13 to 0.07 per month per 1000 enrollees; after implementation, there was a nonsignificant increase in the number of oral and nonoral NSAID prescriptions (change, 1.49 per 1000 enrollees; 95% CI, -3.38 to 6.37 per 1000 enrollees). Conclusions and Relevance: In this quality improvement study, prescribing and use of prescription NSAIDs did not increase after implementation of a law restricting opioid analgesic prescriptions in Florida. These findings suggest possible greater use of over-the-counter NSAIDs after implementation of the law, but further research is needed to evaluate changes in the use of nonopioid analgesics and alternative pain therapies

Changes in Prescribing by Provider Type Following a State Prescription Opioid Restriction Law

Background: Many states have implemented opioid days’ supply restriction policies, leading to reductions in opioid prescribing. Although research within certain provider types exist, no study has evaluated a restriction policy by various provider types. Objective: To evaluate changes in opioid utilization following a days’ supply restriction policy stratified by provider type: surgery, emergency medicine, primary care, specialty care, and dentistry. Design: Interrupted time series (ITS) Participants: Opioid prescription claims of patients in a private health plan serving a large Florida employer from 1/1/2015 to 3/31/2019. Provider types were determined using the Healthcare Provider Taxonomy Code associated with the national provider identifier (NPI). Interventions: Florida’s opioid restriction policy implemented on July 1, 2018. Main Measures: Changes in mean morphine milligram equivalent (MMEs), mean days’ supply, and mean number of units dispensed per opioid prescription before and after policy implementation. Key Results: There were 10,583 opioid initial prescriptions dispensed. Treating providers were classified as surgery (16.4%; n = 1732), emergency care (14.3%; n = 1516), primary care (21.2%; n = 2241), specialty care (11.4%; n = 1207), and dentistry providers (23.7%; n = 2511). Significant reductions in mean days’ supply were observed across most provider types ranging from 14% reduction for dentistry providers to 41% reduction for specialty care providers. Significant changes were observed for emergency care and specialty care providers with a 30% (p = 0.001)and 29% (p < 0.001) reduction in mean MME, respectively, and a 27% (p = 0.040) reduction in mean number of units dispensed in emergency care providers, after implementation. Pre-implementation trends in opioid prescribing varied by provider type impacting the effects of the opioid days’ supply restriction policy. Conclusions: Pre-policy opioid prescribing varied by provider type with a differential impact on mean MMEs, mean days’ supply, and mean number of units dispensed per prescription following implementation

Medicare Bundled Payment Policy on Anemia Care, Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events, and Mortality among Adults Undergoing Hemodialysis

Background and objectives In 2011, the Centers forMedicare & Medicaid Services implemented bundling of all services for patients receiving dialysis, including erythropoietin-stimulating agents use, and the Food and Drug Administration recommended conservative erythropoietin-stimulating agent dosing. Design, setting, participants, & measurements This retrospective cohort study investigated anemia care and clinical outcomes before and after the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services bundled payment and the revised Food and Drug Administration–recommended erythropoietin-stimulating agent labeling for Medicareinsured adults receiving hemodialysis using data from the United States Renal Data System from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2016. Clinical outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular event (stroke, acute myocardial infarction, and all-cause mortality), cardiovascular mortality, and heart failure. Measurements were compared between prepolicy (2006–2010) and postpolicy (2012–2016) implementation using interrupted time series and Cox proportional hazards regression models. Results Of 481,564 patients, erythropoietin-stimulating agent use immediately decreased by 84.8 per 1000 persons (P11 g/dl decreased from 68% in January 2006 to 28% in December 2016, whereas those with hemoglobin >9 g/dl increased from 5% to 9%. Overall major adverse cardiovascular event (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.94 to 0.96), stroke (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.80 to 0.86), all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.86 to 0.89), cardiovascular mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.79 to 0.83), and heart failure (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.84 to 0.88) risks were lower. Acute myocardial infarction risk (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 1.01 to 1.06) was higher after policies changed. Conclusions The Medicare reimbursement policy and Food and Drug Administration–recommended erythropoietin-stimulating agent dosing changes were associated with lower erythropoietin-stimulating agent use and lower hemoglobin levels. These changes in anemia care were associated with lower risks of major adverse cardiovascular event, stroke, mortality, and heart failure but higher risk of acute myocardial infarction among adults receiving hemodialysis

Large expert-curated database for benchmarking document similarity detection in biomedical literature search

Document recommendation systems for locating relevant literature have mostly relied on methods developed a decade ago. This is largely due to the lack of a large offline gold-standard benchmark of relevant documents that cover a variety of research fields such that newly developed literature search techniques can be compared, improved and translated into practice. To overcome this bottleneck, we have established the RElevant LIterature SearcH consortium consisting of more than 1500 scientists from 84 countries, who have collectively annotated the relevance of over 180 000 PubMed-listed articles with regard to their respective seed (input) article/s. The majority of annotations were contributed by highly experienced, original authors of the seed articles. The collected data cover 76% of all unique PubMed Medical Subject Headings descriptors. No systematic biases were observed across different experience levels, research fields or time spent on annotations. More importantly, annotations of the same document pairs contributed by different scientists were highly concordant. We further show that the three representative baseline methods used to generate recommended articles for evaluation (Okapi Best Matching 25, Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency and PubMed Related Articles) had similar overall performances. Additionally, we found that these methods each tend to produce distinct collections of recommended articles, suggesting that a hybrid method may be required to completely capture all relevant articles. The established database server located at https://relishdb.ict.griffith.edu.au is freely available for the downloading of annotation data and the blind testing of new methods. We expect that this benchmark will be useful for stimulating the development of new powerful techniques for title and title/abstract-based search engines for relevant articles in biomedical research.Peer reviewe

Violence and publicity: constructions of political responsibility after 9/11

Focussing upon recent political philosophical reflections on the War on Terror, this paper asks whether violence can be understood without undermining the empirical and normative potential of public action to curtail it. Explanations of political violence are often either dismissed as mere exoneration, or end up reducing all forms of power to violence. Negotiating a path between these poles requires developing a double sense of responsibility that affirms that while violence can be comprehended as a rational phenomenon this does not in principle undermine the potential of public action to democratize violence. Theoretical approaches that ontologize violence as an ineradicable feature of 'the political' are criticized for leaving little space for thinking about the possibility of legitimate public action in curtailing political violence. The public dimensions of the relationships between justification, legitimacy and political violence are considered by relating contemporary left-liberal arguments about terrorism and legitimate violence to recent feminist conceptualizations of the practice of taking responsibility