PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Miron, Oren
AU  - Wolff-Sagy, Yael
AU  - Levin, Mark
AU  - Lubich, Esti
AU  - Lewinski, Jordan
AU  - Shpunt, Maya
AU  - Ahmad, Wiessam Abu
AU  - Borochov, Ilya
AU  - Netzer, Doron
AU  - Lavie, Gil
TI  - Fentanyl initiation rate following the requirement for specialist approval
AID  - 10.1101/2024.03.13.24304188
DP  - 2024 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2024.03.13.24304188
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/03/15/2024.03.13.24304188.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/03/15/2024.03.13.24304188.full
AB  - Importance Healthcare organizations are exploring tools to address unwarranted fentanyl use which often leads to increased risk of addiction and overdose.Objective To assess the impact of a requirement for a specialist’s approval on fentanyl initiation for non-oncological pain.Design, Settings and Participants Retrospective cohort examination of fentanyl initiations and opioid dispensations for 4.4 million members of Clalit Health Services following a requirement for specialist’s approval for fentanyl initiation on July 2022, which was expanded 6 months later for continued use.Main Outcomes and Measures We analyzed the change in initiations of fentanyl in the year before and after the implementation and 95% confidence interval, with a sub-group analysis by age group. We also compared total opioid dispensation, fentanyl, and non-fentanyl in the 6th and 12th month after the implementation with the predicted rate based on pre-implementation rates.Results The fentanyl initiation rate in the year before the requirement was 711/1,000,000 capita, which decreased following the requirement by -81% (95% confidence interval:-77%; -85%). The decrease attenuated with age: at ages 0-17 years -100% (16%; -216%), at ages 18-39 years -88% (−78%; -97%), at ages 40-64 years -89% (−83%; -95%) and at ages 65 years and above -73% (−68%; -79%). In the 6th month after the requirement was implemented the morphine milligram equivalent from dispensation of total opioids and fentanyl was lower than predicted by 7% and 12% respectively, while non-fentanyl opioids dispensation was 3% higher than predicted. In the 12th month after the initiation requirement, the dispensation of total opioids and fentanyl was lower than predicted by 26% and 39% respectively, while in non-fentanyl opioids it was 4% higher than predicted.Conclusions and Relevance Our results indicate that requiring specialist approval for fentanyl initiation for non-oncological chronic pain was associated with a decrease in fentanyl prescription initiations, especially among non-elderly patients. A decrease also occurred gradually in total opioid dispensations, further decreasing following the extension of the requirement to continuous fentanyl. These findings suggest that requiring specialist approval for non-oncological fentanyl initiations is likely an effective strategy to be considered by other healthcare providers.Question Was the requirement for specialist approval when initiating fentanyl for non-oncological pain followed by a decrease in fentanyl initiations and overall dispensing of opioids?Answer In this cohort study of 4.4 million members of Clalit Health Services without cancer, 81% decrease in fentanyl initiations was observed in the year following the implementation of the requirement for specialist approval. After 6 months from implementation, dispensed morphine milligram equivalent from opioids decreased by 7%.Meaning These findings suggest that requiring specialist approval for fentanyl initiation in non-oncological pain can help reduce fentanyl initiations and overall opioids dispensed and is likely an effective strategy to be considered by other healthcare providers.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study did not receive any fundingAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Clalit Health Services.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.YesI 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).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesThe Institutional Review Board approval does not allow the release of individual patient data