Abstract
Background: In 2016, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia released a legally enforceable opioid prescribing practice standard for the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP). The standard was revised in 2018, following physicians, patient groups and key partners' concerns it was inappropriately interpreted. We tested the effects of the practice standard on access to opioids for people living with CNCP; and spillover effects on people living with cancer or receiving palliative care. Methods: We used comprehensive administrative health data and multiple baseline interrupted time series analysis to evaluate the effects of the 2016 practice standard and 2018 revision. Results: The practice standard accelerated pre-existing declining trends in morphine milligram equivalents (MME) dispensed per person living with CNCP (-0.1%, 95% CI: -0.2, 0.0%), but also for people living with cancer (-0.7%, 95% CI: -1.0, -0.5%) or receiving palliative care (-0.3%, 95% CI: -0.5, 0.0%). Trends for the proportion of people with CNCP prescribed an opioid >90 MME daily dose (-0.3%, 95% CI: -0.4, 0.2%), co-prescribed benzodiazepine or other hypnotic (-0.6%, 95% CI: -0.7, -0.5%), and rapidly tapered (0.1%, 95% CI: -0.2, 0.0%) also declined more quickly. While level effects were generally in the same direction, the proportion of people rapidly tapered immediately post-implementation increased 2.0% (95% CI: 0.4, 3.3%). Trends slowed or reversed post-2018 revision. Interpretation: The 2016 practice standard was associated with an immediate and long-lasting effect on physicians' opioid prescribing behaviours, including negative spillover effects on tapering, and for people living with cancer or receiving palliative care.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Project Grant (no. 461668).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
McGill's IRB gave ethical approval for this work.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Subject Area
Reviews and Context
0
Comment
0
TRIP Peer Reviews
0
Community Reviews
0
Automated Services
0
Blogs/Media
Author Videos