Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) that collect and distribute information on dispensed controlled substances have been adopted by nearly all US states. We know little about program characteristics that modify PDMP impact on prescription opioid overdose deaths. METHODS:We measured associations between adoption of any PDMP and changes in fatal prescription opioid overdoses in 2002-2016 across 3,109 counties in 49 states. We then measured changes related to the adoption of "proactive PDMPs", which report outlying prescribing/dispensing patterns and provide broader access to PDMP data by law enforcement. Comparisons were made within three time intervals that broadly represent the evolution of PDMPs (2002-2004, 2005-2009, 2010-2016). We modeled overdoses using Bayesian space-time models. RESULTS:Adoption of electronic PDMP access was associated with 9% lower rates of fatal prescription opioid overdoses after three years (rate ratio [RR]=0.91, 95% credible interval [CI]: 0.88-0.93) with well-supported effects for methadone (RR=0.86, CI: 0.82-0.90) and other synthetic opioids (RR=0.82, CI: 0.77-0.86). Compared to states with no/weak PDMPs, proactive PDMPs were associated with fewer deaths attributed to natural/semi-synthetic opioids (2002-2004: RR=0.72 (0.66-0.78); 2005-2009: RR=0.93 (0.90-0.97); 2010-2016: 0.89 (0.86-0.92)) and methadone (2002-2004: RR=0.77 (0.69-0.85); 2010-2016: RR=0.90 (0.86-0.94)). Unintended effects were observed for synthetic opioids other than methadone (2005-2009: RR=1.29 (1.21-1.38); 2010-2016: RR=1.22 (1.16-1.29)). CONCLUSIONS:State adoption of PDMPs was associated with fewer prescription opioid deaths overall while proactive PDMPs alone were associated with fewer deaths related to natural/semi-synthetic opioids and methadone, the specific targets of these programs.

The United States continues to face a public health emergency of opioid-related harm, the effects of which could be dramatically reduced through increased access to the opioid antagonist naloxone. Unfortunately, naloxone is too often unavailable when and where it is most needed, partly due to its continued status as a prescription medication. Although states and the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have acted to increase access to naloxone, these changes are insufficient to address this unprecedented crisis. In this Commentary, we argue that FDA can and should immediately reclassify naloxone from prescription-only to over-the-counter status, a change that could save hundreds if not thousands of lives in the United States every year.

The United States remains in the grip of an unprecedented epidemic of drug-related harm. Infections of HIV, hepatitis C, and endocarditis related to lack of access to new syringes and subsequent syringe sharing among people who inject drugs have increased alongside a surge in opioid overdose deaths.Overwhelming evidence shows that using a new syringe with every injection prevents injection-related blood-borne disease transmission. Additionally, there is promising research suggesting that the distribution of fentanyl test strips to people who inject drugs changes individuals' injection decisions, which enables safer drug use and reduces the risk of fatal overdose. However, laws prohibiting the possession of syringes and fentanyl test strips persist in nearly every state.The full and immediate repeal of state paraphernalia laws is both warranted and needed to reduce opioid overdose death and related harms. Such repeal would improve the health of people who inject drugs and those with whom they interact, reducing the spread of blood-borne disease and fatal overdose associated with infiltration of illicitly manufactured fentanyl into the illicit drug supply. It would also free up scarce public resources that could be redirected toward evidence-based approaches to reducing drug-related harm.

The United States continues to face a public health crisis of opioid-related harm, the effects of which could be dramatically reduced through increased access to opioid agonist therapy with the medications methadone and buprenorphine. Despite overwhelming evidence of their efficacy, unduly restrictive federal, state, and local regulation significantly impedes access to these life-saving medications. We outline immediate, concrete steps that federal, state, and local governments can take to change law from barrier to facilitator of evidence-based treatment for opioid use disorder. These include removing onerous restrictions on the prescription and dispensing of buprenorphine and methadone for opioid agonist therapy, requiring insurance coverage of these medications, and mandating that they be provided in correctional settings and promoted by drug courts. Finally, we argue that jurisdictions should proactively offer opioid agonist therapy to individuals at high risk of overdose, remove barriers to establishing methadone treatment facilities, and address underlying social determinants and barriers to treatment. These changes have the ability to save thousands of lives annually.

BACKGROUND:Prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMP), by reducing access to prescribed opioids (POs), may contribute to a policy environment in which some people with opioid dependence are at increased risk for transitioning from POs to heroin/other illegal opioids. This study examines how PDMP adoption and changes in the characteristics of PDMPs over time contribute to changes in fatal heroin poisoning in counties within states from 2002 to 2016. METHODS:Latent transition analysis to classify PDMPs into latent classes (Cooperative, Proactive, and Weak) for each state and year, across three intervals (1999-2004, 2005-2009, 2010-2016). We examined the association between probability of PDMP latent class membership and the rate of county-level heroin poisoning death. RESULTS:After adjustment for potential county-level confounders and co-occurring policy changes, adoption of a PDMP was significantly associated with increased heroin poisoning rates (22% increase by third year post-adoption). Findings varied by PDMP type. From 2010-2016, states with Cooperative PDMPs (those more likely to share data with other states, to require more frequent reporting, and include more drug schedules) had 19% higher heroin poisoning rates than states with Weak PDMPs (adjusted rate ratio [ARR] = 1.19; 95% CI = 1.14, 1.25). States with Proactive PDMPs (those more likely to report outlying prescribing and dispensing and provide broader access to law enforcement) had 6% lower heroin poisoning rates than states with No/Weak PDMPs (ARR = 0.94; 95% CI = 0.90, 0.98). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:There is a consistent, positive association between state PDMP adoption and heroin poisoning mortality. However, this varies by PDMP type, with Proactive PDMPs associated with a small reduction in heroin poisoning deaths. This raises questions about the potential for PDMPs to support efforts to decrease heroin overdose risk, particularly by using proactive alerts to identify patients in need of treatment for opioid use disorder. Future research on mechanisms explaining the reduction in heroin poisonings after enactment of Proactive PDMPs is merited.

States have implemented a variety of legal and policy approaches to address the overdose epidemic. Some approaches, like increasing access to naloxone and connecting overdose survivors with evidence-based treatment, have a strong public health foundation and a compelling evidence base. Others, like increasing reliance on punitive criminal justice approaches, have neither. This article examines law and policy changes that are likely to be effective in reducing overdose-related harm as well as those that are likely to increase it.