Abstract
Study Objective The US is experiencing an epidemic of opioid overdoses which may be at least partially due to an over-reliance on opioid analgesics in the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain and subsequent escalation to heroin or illicit fentanyl. As Texas was reported to be among the lowest in the US for opioid use and misuse, further examination of this state is warranted.
Study Design This study was conducted to quantify prescription opioid use in Texas.
Data Source Data was obtained from the publically available US Drug Enforcement Administration’s Automation of Reports and Consolidated Orders System (ARCOS) which monitors controlled substances transactions from manufacture to commercial distribution.
Measurement and Main Results Data for 2006-2017 from Texas for ten prescription opioids including eight primarily used to relieve pain (codeine, fentanyl, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, meperidine, morphine, oxycodone, oxymorphone) and two (buprenorphine and methadone) for the treatment of an Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) were examined. The change in Morphine Mg Equivalent (MME) of all opioids (+23.3%) was only slightly greater than the state’s population gains (21.1%). Opioids used to treat an OUD showed pronounced gains (+90.8%) which were four-fold faster than population growth. Analysis of individual agents revealed pronounced elevations in codeine (+387.5%), hydromorphone (+106.7%), and oxycodone (+43.6%) and a reduction in meperidine (−80.3%) in 2017 relative to 2006. Methadone in 2017 accounted for a greater portion (39.5%) of the total MME than hydrocodone, oxycodone, morphine, hydromorphone, oxymorphone, and meperidine, combined. There were differences between urban and rural areas in the changes in hydrocodone and buprenorphine.
Conclusions Collectively, these findings indicate that continued vigilance is needed in Texas to appropriately treat pain and an OUD while minimizing the potential for prescription opioid diversion and misuse. Texas may lead the US in a return to pre opioid crisis prescription levels.
Competing Interest Statement
BJP, DYC and SDN were supported by the Fahs-Beck Fund for Research and Experimentation, a non-profit organization. BJP has a grant in review with Pfizer. The others authors have no relevant disclosures.
Funding Statement
BJP, DYC and SDN were supported by the Fahs-Beck Fund for Research and Experimentation. Software was provided by the Husson University School of Pharmacy and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (T32 ES007060-31A1). Michael Sprintz, DO and Joseph Fraiman, MD provided feedback on earlier versions of this manuscript.
Author Declarations
All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Not Applicable
Any clinical trials involved have been registered with an ICMJE-approved registry such as ClinicalTrials.gov and the trial ID is included in the manuscript.
Not Applicable
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant Equator, ICMJE or other checklist(s) as supplementary files, if applicable.
Not Applicable
Footnotes
Disclosures: BJP, DYC and SDN were supported by the Fahs-Beck Fund for Research and Experimentation, a non-profit organization. BJP has a grant in review with Pfizer. The others authors have no relevant disclosures.
Data Availability
The raw data is available from the Drug Enforcement Administration at: https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/arcos/retail_drug_summary/index.html
https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/arcos/retail_drug_summary/index.html
