Pasquale Margaret K, Sheer Richard L, Mardekian Jack, Masters Elizabeth T, Patel Nick C, Hurwitch Amy R, Weber Jennifer J, Jorga Anamaria, Roland Carl L
Research Manager, Comprehensive Health Insights, Inc., Louisville, Kentucky.
Principal Researcher, Comprehensive Health Insights, Inc., Louisville, Kentucky.
J Opioid Manag. 2017 Sep/Oct;13(5):303-313. doi: 10.5055/jom.2017.0399.
To evaluate the impact of a pilot intervention for physicians to support their treatment of patients at risk for opioid abuse.
SETTING, DESIGN AND PATIENTS, PARTICIPANTS: Patients at risk for opioid abuse enrolled in Medicare plans were identified from July 1, 2012 to April 30, 2014 (N = 2,391), based on a published predictive model, and linked to 4,353 opioid-prescribing physicians. Patient-physician clusters were randomly assigned to one of four interventions using factorial design.
Physicians received one of the following: Arm 1, patient information; Arm 2, links to educational materials for diagnosis and management of pain; Arm 3, both patient information and links to educational materials; or Arm 4, no communication.
Difference-in-difference analyses compared opioid and pain prescriptions, chronic high-dose opioid use, uncoordinated opioid use, and opioid-related emergency department (ED) visits. Logistic regression compared diagnosis of opioid abuse between cases and controls postindex.
Mailings had no significant impact on numbers of opioid or pain medications filled, chronic high-dose opioid use, uncoordinated opioid use, ED visits, or rate of diagnosed opioid abuse. Relative to Arm 4, odds ratios (95% CI) for diagnosed opioid abuse were Arm 1, 0.95(0.63-1.42); Arm 2, 0.83(0.55-1.27); Arm 3, 0.72(0.46-1.13). While 84.7 percent had ≥1 psychiatric diagnoses during preindex (p = 0.89 between arms), only 9.5 percent had ≥1 visit with mental health specialists (p = 0.53 between arms).
Although this intervention did not affect pain-related outcomes, future interventions involving care coordination across primary care and mental health may impact opioid abuse and improve quality of life of patients with pain.
评估一项针对医生的试点干预措施对其治疗阿片类药物滥用风险患者的影响。
设置、设计及患者、参与者:根据已发表的预测模型,于2012年7月1日至2014年4月30日期间确定了参加医疗保险计划的阿片类药物滥用风险患者(N = 2391),并将其与4353名开具阿片类药物处方的医生进行关联。采用析因设计将患者 - 医生群组随机分配至四种干预措施之一。
医生接受以下其中一项:第1组,患者信息;第2组,疼痛诊断与管理教育材料链接;第3组,患者信息及教育材料链接;或第4组,无沟通。
差异分析比较了阿片类药物和疼痛处方、慢性高剂量阿片类药物使用、不协调的阿片类药物使用以及与阿片类药物相关的急诊科就诊情况。逻辑回归比较了索引后病例与对照之间阿片类药物滥用的诊断情况。
邮寄对填充的阿片类药物或止痛药物数量、慢性高剂量阿片类药物使用、不协调的阿片类药物使用、急诊科就诊或诊断出的阿片类药物滥用率没有显著影响。相对于第4组,诊断出阿片类药物滥用的优势比(95%置信区间)为:第1组,0.95(0.63 - 1.42);第2组,0.83(0.55 - 1.27);第3组,0.72(0.46 - 1.13)。虽然84.7%的患者在索引前有≥1次精神科诊断(组间p = 0.89),但只有9.5%的患者有≥1次心理健康专家就诊(组间p = 0.53)。
尽管该干预措施未影响与疼痛相关的结局,但未来涉及初级保健和心理健康护理协调的干预措施可能会影响阿片类药物滥用并改善疼痛患者的生活质量。