Walker Alexander M, Weatherby Lisa B, Cepeda M Soledad, Bradford Daniel, Yuan Yingli
*WHISCON, Newton, MA †Janssen Research and Development, Titusville, NJ ‡IMS Health, Plymouth Meeting, PA.
Clin J Pain. 2017 Nov;33(11):976-982. doi: 10.1097/AJP.0000000000000483.
We created an operational definition of possible opioid shopping in US commercial health insurance data and examined its correlates.
The population consisted of 264,204 treatment courses in persons with a fill for an opioid or diuretic prescription in 2012 and a second within 18 months. We examined counts of prescribers and pharmacies and the numbers of fills and overlaps for ability to discriminate courses of opioids from diuretics, which were a negative control. The most discriminatory measure, indicating possible shopping behavior, was cross-tabulated against other prescriptions filled and diagnoses as found in insurance claims. The associations between claims characteristics and shopping behavior were assessed in a logistic regression.
A definition that classified possible "moderate" or "extensive" shopping when a person obtained drug through at least 3 practices and at least 3 pharmacies over 18 months was highly discriminatory between opioid and diuretic treatment. Overlaps between fills and number of fills did not improve the discrimination. Data from insurance claims strongly predicted moderate-to-extensive levels of possible shopping (c=0.82). Prominent among 20 significant predictors were: state of residence; amount of opioid dispensed; self-payment; use of nonspecialist prescribers; high use of anxiolytics, hypnotics, psychostimulants, and antipsychotics; and use of both immediate release and extended-release or long-acting opioids.
The use of ≥3 prescribing practices and ≥3 dispensing pharmacies over 18 months sharply discriminated courses of opioid treatment from courses of diuretics. This pattern of fills was additionally associated with the numbers of nonspecialist and self-paid fills, the total morphine milligram equivalents dispensed, and heavier use of drugs for anxiety, sleep, attention, and psychosis.
我们在美国商业医疗保险数据中创建了一个关于可能存在阿片类药物购买行为的操作定义,并对其相关因素进行了研究。
研究对象为264,204个治疗疗程,这些患者在2012年开具了阿片类药物或利尿剂处方,且在18个月内又开具了第二次处方。我们检查了开处方者和药房的数量以及取药次数和重复取药情况,以判断能否区分阿片类药物治疗疗程和作为阴性对照的利尿剂治疗疗程。将最具区分性的、表明可能存在购买行为的指标与保险理赔中记录的其他已开具处方和诊断结果进行交叉制表分析。通过逻辑回归评估理赔特征与购买行为之间的关联。
当一个人在18个月内通过至少3个医疗机构和至少3家药房获取药物时,将其归类为可能存在“中度”或“广泛”购买行为的定义,在区分阿片类药物和利尿剂治疗方面具有高度区分性。取药重复情况和取药次数并未提高区分度。保险理赔数据强烈预测了可能存在的中度至广泛购买水平(c = 0.82)。20个显著预测因素中突出的有:居住州;阿片类药物配药量;自付费用;非专科开处方者的使用情况;大量使用抗焦虑药、催眠药、精神兴奋剂和抗精神病药;以及同时使用速释和缓释或长效阿片类药物。
在18个月内使用≥3个开处方医疗机构和≥3家配药药房,能显著区分阿片类药物治疗疗程和利尿剂治疗疗程。这种取药模式还与非专科和自付取药次数、总吗啡毫克当量配药量以及更大量使用治疗焦虑、睡眠、注意力和精神病的药物有关。