Graham, David J.

Abstract Background Opioid stewardship policies could adversely affect pain management for patients with cancer. Yet patients with cancer are also at risk for opioid‐related harms. This study sought to determine trends in opioid prescribing by clinical stratum and pain for patients with cancer from 2016 to 2020. Methods A retrospective study was conducted of opioid‐naive adults with newly diagnosed cancer from 2016 to 2020 ( N = 10,232) in a large Connecticut health system. Logistic regression was used to calculate changes in the predicted probability of opioid prescribing from 2016 to 2020. Two subpopulations were examined: patients treated surgically ( n = 4405) and patients with metastatic cancer ( n = 2158). Flowsheet pain scores for patients with metastatic cancer were used to stratify by no pain (all scores, 0) versus any pain. The main outcomes were new (≥1 prescription in the 0–6 months after diagnosis) and additional (0–6 and 7–9 months) opioid prescriptions. Results A decline was observed in the predicted probability of new (71.1% to 64.6%; p < .001) and additional prescribing (27.2% to 24.2%; p = .07 [not significant]) declined. Among surgical patients, the predicted probability of new opioid prescribing fell (96.0% to 88.6%; p < .001), whereas additional prescribing was stable (13%). For patients with metastatic cancer with pain, new opioid prescribing was stable (56%). For those reporting no pain, the predicted probability of new opioid prescribing declined from 61.6% to 36.1% ( p < .001). Conclusions In the context of widespread policy changes, this study showed a modest decline in new and additional opioid prescribing for patients with cancer. In metastatic cancer, prescribing remained stable for patients reporting pain and declined steeply for those reporting no pain.

11059 Background: Some opioid stewardship policies could negatively affect patients with cancer pain. However, patients with cancer are also at risk for opioid related harms, especially with persistent use. We assessed opioid prescribing trends in the context of cancer treatment and patient reported pain in a large health system in Connecticut. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of opioid-naïve adult patients with solid tumor malignancies diagnosed from 2016 through 2020 within the Yale New Haven Health System. We identified new (≥1 opioid prescription in 0-6 months following diagnosis) and additional (0-6 and 6-9 months) opioid prescriptions. The analysis evaluated all eligible patients as well as two clinical cohorts: patients treated surgically and patients with metastatic cancer. For patients with metastatic cancer and a documented pain score in the electronic health record flowsheet data, we further stratified by any (any score≥1) or no (all scores=0) pain in the 6 months since diagnosis and prior to first opioid, if given. For these patients, we noted therapeutic class of the first opioid. We used a logistic model adjusted for patient demographics to calculate predicted probability of opioid prescription and change over time. Results: A total of 10,868 patients met study criteria. Overall, we observed a decline in new opioid prescribing from 69.0% to 62.7% (p<.001) (Table). Additional opioid use also declined from 23.4% to 20.2% (p=.02). In the surgery cohort, new opioid prescribing fell from 95.7% to 88.2% (p<.001), while additional opioid use was stable over time (approximately 12%). For patients with metastatic cancer with any documented pain, new opioid prescribing was stable over time (approximately 56%). For those with documented pain scores=0, new opioid prescribing declined from 59.7% to 34.2% (p<.001). In these patients, the class listed on the first opioid prescription was analgesia in 86.6% and cough in 13.4%. Conclusions: Overall, and in patients treated with oncological surgeries, our study in a single large US health system suggests a modest, gradual decline in opioid prescribing for patients with cancer over time. On the other hand, among patients with metastatic cancer, opioid prescribing remained stable for those with documented pain and declined steeply for those without documented pain. [Table: see text]

Abstract Background The impact of ongoing efforts to decrease opioid use on patients with cancer remains undefined. Our objective was to determine trends in new and additional opioid use in patients with and without cancer. Methods This retrospective cohort study used data from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program–Medicare for opioid-naive patients with solid tumor malignancies diagnosed from 2012 through 2017 and a random sample of patients without cancer. We identified 238 470 eligible patients with cancer and further focused on 4 clinical strata: patients without cancer, patients with metastatic cancer, patients with nonmetastatic cancer treated with surgery alone (“surgery alone”), and patients with nonmetastatic cancer treated with surgery plus chemotherapy or radiation therapy (“surgery+”). We identified new, early additional, and long-term additional opioid use and calculated the change in predicted probability of these outcomes from 2012 to 2017. Results New opioid use was higher in patients with cancer (46.4%) than in those without (6.9%) (P &lt; .001). From 2012 to 2017, the predicted probability of new opioid use was more stable in the cancer strata (relative declines: 0.1% surgery alone; 2.4% surgery+; 8.8% metastatic cancer), than in the noncancer stratum (20.0%) (P &lt; .001 for each cancer to noncancer comparison). Early additional use declined among surgery patients (‒14.9% and ‒17.5% for surgery alone and surgery+, respectively) but was stable among patients with metastatic disease (‒2.8%, P = .50). Conclusions Opioid prescribing declined over time at a slower rate in patients with cancer than in patients without cancer. Our study suggests important but tempered effects of the changing opioid climate on patients with cancer.

1592 Background: While ongoing efforts to decrease opioid use have dramatically altered the prescribing landscape, the impact on patients with cancer is not well understood. We examined trends in new and persistent opioid use in opioid-naïve older patients with and without cancer in the United States. Methods: This retrospective cohort study used SEER-Medicare linked data for patients with solid tumors malignancies diagnosed from 2012 through 2017, and a random sample of patients without cancer. We included patients who did not receive opioids for 3 months prior to the diagnosis or randomly assigned index date. We identified new opioid use (claim in 0-90 days after diagnosis/index date), early persistent opioid use (claims in days 0-90 and 91-180), and long-term persistent opioid use (claims in days 0-90 and 91-180 and months 13-15). Further analysis focused on 4 clinical strata: non-cancer, metastatic cancer, cancer treated with surgery alone, and cancer treated with surgery plus chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy ("surgery+"). We calculated relative changes in the predicted probability of opioid use from 2012 to 2017 based on a logit model adjusted for patient demographics. Results: We identified 238,470 eligible patients with cancer (mean age 76.3 years). Among patients with cancer, 46.4% had new opioid use; use was higher among those receiving surgery+ (70.6%), those treated with surgery alone (58.8%) and those with metastatic cancer (50.0%), compared to patients without cancer (6.9%). From 2012 to 2017, the predicted probability of new opioid use declined in all groups, with lower relative decline in the cancer subgroups (6.8% surgery+; 9.5% surgery alone; 10.2% metastatic cancer) compared to the non-cancer comparator (24.7%). For instance, in patients with metastatic cancer, predicted probability of new use decreased from 52.4 to 47.1% (10.2%) vs. 8.0 to 6.0% (24.7%) in patients without cancer. Relative decline in predicted probability of long-term persistent opioid use was lower in the surgical cancer strata (44.2% surgery+; 46.1% surgery alone) vs. the non-cancer comparator (54.0%). Conclusions: While opioid use remains common in patients with cancer, new and persistent opioid use declined over time in all patients, though with steeper relative declines in non-cancer compared to cancer populations. Our study suggests important but tempered effects of the changing opioid climate on patients with cancer.[Table: see text]

Background: Patients with atrial fibrillation and severely decreased kidney function were excluded from the pivotal non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOAC) trials, thereby raising questions about comparative safety and effectiveness in patients with reduced kidney function. The study aimed to compare oral anticoagulants across the range of kidney function in patients with atrial fibrillation. Methods and Results: Using a US administrative claims database with linked laboratory data, 34 569 new users of oral anticoagulants with atrial fibrillation and estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥15 mL/(min·1.73 m 2 ) were identified between October 1, 2010 to November 29, 2017. The proportion of patients using NOACs declined with decreasing kidney function—73.5%, 69.6%, 65.4%, 59.5%, and 45.0% of the patients were prescribed a NOAC in estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥90, 60 to 90, 45 to 60, 30 to 45, 15 to 30 mL/min per 1.73 m 2 groups, respectively. Stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to balance 4 treatment groups (apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and warfarin) on 66 baseline characteristics. In comparison to warfarin, apixaban was associated with a lower risk of stroke (hazard ratio [HR], 0.57 [0.43–0.75]; P <0.001), major bleeding (HR, 0.51 [0.44–0.61]; P <0.001), and mortality (HR, 0.68 [0.56–0.83]; P <0.001); dabigatran was associated with a similar risk of stroke but a lower risk of major bleeding (HR, 0.57 [0.43–0.75]; P <0.001) and mortality (HR, 0.68 [0.48-0.98]; P =0.04); rivaroxaban was associated with a lower risk of stroke (HR, 0.69 [0.51–0.94]; P =0.02), major bleeding (HR, 0.84 [0.72–0.99]; P =0.04), and mortality (HR, 0.73 [0.58–0.91]; P =0.006). There was no significant interaction between treatment and estimated glomerular filtration rate categories for any outcome. When comparing one NOAC to another NOAC, there was no significant difference in mortality, but some differences existed for stroke or major bleeding. No relationship between treatments and falsification end points was found, suggesting no evidence for substantial residual confounding. Conclusions: Relative to warfarin, NOACs are used less frequently as kidney function declines. However, NOACs appears to have similar or better comparative effectiveness and safety across the range of kidney function.

Background: Stroke prevention using warfarin is challenging in AF patients with CKD, due to high bleeding risk and difficulties in the INR control. NOACs provide alternative options, but all have greater degrees of renal clearance. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and warfarin across the range of kidney function in patients with AF. Methods: Using a US administrative database including private insurance or Medicare Advantage patients with linked claims and laboratory data, we identified 34,569 new users of oral anticoagulants with AF and eGFR ≥15 between 10/1/2010-11/29/2017. Stabilized IPTW balanced four treatment groups on 66 baseline characteristics. The primary outcomes included stroke, major bleeding, and mortality. Weighted Cox proportional hazards models compared treatments in the overall population and in each eGFR subgroup, with mortality as a competing risk for stroke and major bleeding. Results: The proportion of patients using warfarin increased as the kidney function declined - 26.5%, 30.4%, 34.6%, 40.5%, and 55.0% of patients were prescribed warfarin in eGFR ≥90, 60-90, 45-60, 30-45, 15-30 groups, respectively. In comparison to warfarin, apixaban was associated with a lower risk of stroke, major bleeding, and mortality; dabigatran was associated with a similar risk of stroke, and a lower risk of major bleeding and mortality; rivaroxaban was associated with a lower risk of stroke, major bleeding, and mortality (Figure). When comparing one NOAC to another NOAC, apixaban and dabigatran were associated with a lower risk of major bleeding than rivaroxaban (HR 0.61 [0.51-0.73], p<0.001 for apixaban versus rivaroxaban; HR 0.67 [0.50-0.90], p=0.007 for dabigatran versus rivaroxaban); dabigatran was associated with a higher risk of stroke than apixaban (HR 1.65 [1.11-2.46], p=0.01); there was no difference in mortality. There was no significant interaction between treatment and eGFR categories for any outcome, but the number of patients with low eGFR was small. Conclusions: In practice, relative to warfarin, NOACs are progressively less commonly used with increasing degree of renal dysfunction. However, each NOAC was consistently associated with at least equivalent effectiveness and safety compared with warfarin across the range of kidney function.