Fentanyl initiation rate following the requirement for specialist approval

Introduction

Studies have shown that fentanyl initiations for non-oncological chronic pain are often given despite contra-indications, such as not proving prior opioid tolerance for weaker opioids.¹ For example, a study has shown that around 50% of fentanyl initiations in Canada occurred without sufficient opioid tolerance.² It should be noted that examining contraindications for fentanyl can require considerable time and knowledge. For example, identifying prior opioid tolerance requires collecting records on all prior opioid consumption by type and dosage, converting each type to morphine milligram equivalent (MME), and summing the daily dose for each of the last 7 days, to ensure they passed 60 morphine milligram equivalent per day.²

Initiation of fentanyl without prior tolerance to weaker opioids during the past 7 days was associated with respiratory arrest, and fentanyl prescription is associated with opioid use disorder and with opioid overdoses causing severe respiratory depression.^3–5 In recent years, opioid overdose rates have increased in many developed countries, with the United States suffering from 80,000 overdose deaths in 2021.⁶

Dispensing of fentanyl has significantly increased in Israel over the past decade, especially among non-oncological younger patients.⁷ This led Israel to a 120% increase in opioid consumption between 2011 and 2016, which was the largest increase in the OECD and twice as high as that of the United Kingdom which had the 2^nd largest increase.⁸ This increase in fentanyl initiations among non-elderly and low socio-economic Israelis was followed by an increase in fentanyl abuse, dependence, and overdose.^5,9

These concerning patterns led Clalit Health Services (Clalit), the largest healthcare organization in Israel, to require a specialist’s approval for the initiation of fentanyl for non-oncological chronic pain, which was implemented on July 20, 2022. The approval requirement was extended to continuous fentanyl use on January 29, 2023. Our objective was to assess the impact of the specialist requirement for fentanyl initiation, and its long-term effect on fentanyl and non-fentanyl opioid dispensation.

Methods

Results

In the year before requiring specialist approval for prescribing fentanyl to non-oncological patients (20 July 2021 to 19 July 2022), Clalit had 4.8 million members. Of those, 320,197 were excluded from the study due to a previous oncological diagnosis and 16,975 were excluded from the initiation analysis due to a previous prescription of fentanyl. Therefore, the initiation analysis included 4.417 million members in the first year, while in the following year (20 July 2022 to 19 July 2023) it included almost 4.5 million members (Table 1).

In the year before requiring specialist approval for prescribing fentanyl to non-oncological patients, the initiation rate was constant with 708 annual initiations per 1,000,000 capita. Following the requirement, the prescription initiation rate decreased by 81% throughout the following year (Table 2-annual rates; Figure 1-daily rates).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1: Fentanyl prescription initiation before and after requiring approval

Y-axis indicates fentanyl prescription. initiations per 1,000,000 members of Clalit Health Services with a 28-day moving average. X-axis indicates the date of the fentanyl prescription. The dotted line indicated the date when fentanyl initiation started to require specialist approval.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2: Fentanyl prescription initiation before and after requiring approval by age

Y-axis indicates fentanyl prescription initiations per 1,000,000 members of Clalit Health Services with a 28-day moving average. X-axis indicates the date of fentanyl prescription. The dotted line indicated the date when the requirement for a specialist’s approval for fentanyl initiation was implemented. The panels from top to bottom are ages 65 years and above, ages 40-64 years, and ages 18-39 years. Ages 0-17 are not shown as there were not enough initiations to display on a daily rate.

In the year before requiring a specialist approval for non-oncological fentanyl, the daily prescription initiation rates per 1,000,000 capita at ages 0-17 years, 18-39 years, 40-64 years, and 65 years and above were 2, 381, 1080, and 2980 respectively. In the following year, the yearly rate of fentanyl prescription initiations decreased at ages 0-17 years by -100% (−216%; 16%), at ages 18-39 years by -88% (−97%; -78%), at ages 40-64 years by -89% (−95%; -83%) and at ages 65 years and above by -73% (−79%; - 68%) (Table 2).

In the 6^th month after starting the requirement for specialist approval, the MME per capita dispensed from all opioids was 18.24, which was 7% less than the predicted 19.67 (95%-CI 19.55; 19.79). The MME per capita dispensed from fentanyl was 12.01, which was 12% less than the predicted 13.6 (95%-CI 13.52; 13.68). The MME per capita dispensed from non-fentanyl opioids was 6.23, which was 3% more than the predicted 6.07 (95%-CI 6.02; 6.12).

At the 12^th month after starting the requirement for specialist approval for initial use, which was the 6th month after requiring approval for continued use, the MME per capita dispensed from all opioids was 15.16, which was 26% less than the predicted 20.55 (95%-CI 20.37; 20.73). The MME per capita dispensed from fentanyl was 8.73, which was 39% less than the predicted 14.37 (95%-CI 14.25; 14.49). The MME per capita dispensed from non-fentanyl opioids was 6.43, which was 4% more than the predicted 6.18 (95%-CI 6.11; 6.26, Figure 3).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3: Overall morphine milligram equivalent (MME) from opioid dispensation

Y-axis indicates fentanyl dispensations morphine milligram equivilent (MME) per member of Clalit Health Services with a 28-day moving average. X-axis indicates the date of fentanyl prescription. The left dotted line indicates the date when the requirement for specialist’s approval upon fentanyl initiation was implemented, and the right indicates the date when the requirement for specialist’s approval was extended to continued fentanyl roval. Red indicates all opioids, green indicates fentanyl, and blue indicates non-fentanyl opioids. The shaded area indicates the 95% confidence interval of the predicted rate based on linear regression on the rate until the start of the fentanyl limit.

Discussion

In this cohort study of Clalit Health Service patients, implementing a requirement for specialist approval for fentanyl initiation for non-oncological patients was followed by a sharp decrease in fentanyl prescription initiations, which remained for at least a year. The requirement was also followed by a gradual decrease in MME from dispensing fentanyl and overall opioids and a small gradual increase in MME from dispensing non-fentanyl opioids.

The largest fentanyl prescription initiation decrease occurred among non-elderly members, which could stem from non-elderly members having higher rates of fentanyl prescribing that the specialists considered unwarranted. Such unwarranted fentanyl prescribing among non-elderly members could relate to reports of increased fentanyl dispensing and abuse in recent years.^5,7 These reports have also raised awareness of the risks of fentanyl initiation, especially at younger ages, which in turn could have contributed to the decrease in fentanyl initiation at younger ages.

The requirement for specialist approval for fentanyl initiation was followed by a decrease in MME from fentanyl dispensation and from any opioid dispensations, despite a smaller compensatory increase in non-fentanyl dispensation. This could stem from fentanyl being more potent and addictive compared to most prescription opioids, which were less likely to lead to an increase in dispensed MME. Another possible reason could be that codeine, morphine, and oxycodone have a daily milligram limit before requiring approval according to Israeli legislation.¹⁰ However, such approval does not apply to tramadol and buprenorphine.

Israel limited the initiations of the weak opioid propoxyphene in 2011 due to its adverse effects, and the limitation was followed by increased dispensing and abuse of stronger opioids.^7,11 This example, together with our finding, suggests that when limiting the prescribing of an opioid, it is necessary to ensure it would not be replaced by more potent and abuse-prone opioids.

The requirement for specialist approval for fentanyl prescribing in July 2022 affected new fentanyl users, who otherwise would have probably started with low fentanyl doses and gradually increased them. This could explain the gradual decrease in MME dispensation following the requirement from July 2022 to January 2023. The MME form opioid dispensation decreased more sharply after January 2023, when the requirement for specialist approval was extended to continuous fentanyl users. The continuous users often use higher daily MME than new users, which makes the limitation on their fentanyl dispensation have a faster effect on the total MME dispensed. It is worth noting that the specialist approval was given to continuous fentanyl users in most cases, to prevent an abrupt discontinuation of fentanyl use, which could have caused insufficient pain relief and strong withdrawal symptoms. The risk of such a scenario was shown in the U.S. when the abrupt discontinuation of abuse-prone OxyContin in 2010 led many users to abuse heroin.¹²

The impact of previous opioid prescribing policy changes was examined by McGinty et al, which evaluated the impact of thirteen treatment states that implemented different opioid prescribing laws, and found mostly small-magnitude, non-significant changes.¹³ However, a more recent analysis of setting-specific limits on prescription showed significant decreases in initial prescribing length following the implementation of the law.¹⁴ The requirement of specialist approval allows for an even more tailored decision since the specialist takes into account the patient’s prescribing history and abuse risk. This process increases accuracy but also time, which could be shortened in the future with an algorithm that summarizes the relevant data for the specialist and the clinician who first prescribed the fentanyl. For example, such an algorithm could calculate if the patient has medications or conditions that are counter-indicated for fentanyl.

Our main limitation is that our data is based on digital prescriptions and does not include hand-drawn prescriptions. Hand-drawn prescriptions are not as common as digital prescriptions but could hold special importance as they are harder to track and easier to forge, which led to proposals to limit their use for prescribing fentanyl.¹⁵

Another limitation is that the low rate of fentanyl initiation in minors prevented us from determining the effect of the requirement despite the sharp decrease and the large number of participants. The low rate of fentanyl prescriptions in minors for non-oncological pain likely stems from the extra caution taken when prescribing fentanyl to this unique population. Moreover, there have been reports of minors purchasing prescription fentanyl from adults and abusing it, which suggests that limiting unwarranted fentanyl prescriptions to adults could help reduce its abuse among minors.⁹

The decision to exclude cancer patients from requiring a specialist’s approval stems from their increased need for pain relief and from the increased medical monitoring that they are given, which helps prevent unwarranted use and detect addiction. Future policy makers could consider expanding this exclusion criteria for other severe chronic and terminal conditions, and cloud also consider not excluding specific types of cancer that are much less severe, such as early-stage basal cell carcinoma.¹⁶

In conclusion, requiring specialist approval for fentanyl initiation for non-cancer chronic pain was followed by a sharp decrease in fentanyl initiations and a gradual decrease in the total MME dispensed from opioids. A similar requirement might benefit other countries with unwarranted initiations of fentanyl or other strong opioids, especially if safer alternatives are given to patients to prevent them from resorting to dangerous drugs.