Skip to main content

Prescription Opioid Abuse in the Elderly an Urgent Concern


AVENTURA, Florida — The problem of prescription pain medication abuse in the elderly is a rapidly growing concern, new research suggests.
An epidemiologic study presented here at the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry (AAAP) 23rd Annual Meeting & Symposium shows that approximately 20% of individuals aged 65 years and older take analgesics several times per week and that rates of abuse or addiction in those with chronic pain is 18%.
Furthermore, oxycodone, hydrocodone, and methadone were the drugs that were most often involved in up to 40% of opiate misuse–related deaths.
The researchers also found that most of the illicit pain-relieving drugs came from a well-meaning friend or relative.
"What happens is that people get prescription pain medications from a friend or a relative, not from a drug dealer on the street. Or they get it from one physician. For instance, the patient goes to the dentist for a root canal or tooth extraction and gets 30 Vicodin.
Dr. Louis Trevisan
"Of course, not all are used, and the rest goes into the medicine cabinet. Then a friend gets a headache, and the person offers a Vicodin for the pain. That is the route by which many elderly obtain these medications," study investigator Louis Trevisan, MD, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, toldMedscape Medical News.
At 38 million, individuals older than 65 years make up 13% of the US population, and this number is expected to increase by 7% to 10% by 2020. Furthermore, the elderly currently use one third of all medications prescribed, and data from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration (SAMHSA) indicate that 2.8 million seniors abused prescription drugs in the last year. SAMHSA estimates suggest that this number is expected to reach over 4.4 million by 2020.
"As the baby boomers move into the geriatric age range, they are going to be more amenable to taking drugs to alleviate pain than their parents were," Dr. Trevisan told Medscape Medical News.
The generation that came of age during World War II tended to be much more stoic and very leery of taking any kind of drugs. But this is not the case with baby boomers: "Not so the baby boomers," Dr. Trevisan said.
"Baby boomers are from the 'me-me' generation, interested in living longer and taking care of themselves. They were also exposed to marijuana, LSD, and other drugs, and of course, alcohol has always been there, so they are much more inclined to use drugs. They have a different attitude about using substances," he said.
Warning Signs
Dr. Trevisan said the following are warning signs that an elderly patient may be abusing pain meds:
  • They have multiple medical problems.
  • They have a higher than average incidence of chronic pain.
  • They experience common mood disorders.
  • They are multiple prescribers.
  • They insist on prescription of a controlled substance at the first office visit.
  • They physician shop.
  • They keep pain appointments but miss others.
  • They appear grossly dishevelled or impaired.
  • They request early refills.
  • They report their pain med prescription has been lost or stolen.
Grandma Could Be an Addict
When physicians see elderly patients in their office, they should strive to keep in mind that these patients probably have comorbid medical problems and that they may have some cognitive problems, depression, or other mental illness.
"Be just as careful monitoring and scrutinizing [the elderly] as you would a younger person," he said
Dr. Trevisan also stressed that opioid-based pain medications are extremely addictive and that if a patient has been taking them for a long time, he or she could develop withdrawal symptoms when taken off them.
"We tend not to be as careful scrutinizing and screening the elderly. I mean, how could grandma be hooked on Oxycontin? Unfortunately, yes, she could be. So take extra care," he said.
Physicians should also exercise good care and judgment when prescribing opioid medications for noncancer pain, Dr. Trevisan said.
"In general, they should be more careful about prescribing opioid medications for noncancer pain, and if they are prescribing these medications, they should prescribe them in small volumes and not give them a 3-month supply, but a couple of weeks or a smaller amount. They should keep such patients on a shorter leash, because they do get into the hands of family members, and this is where it can get to be a street problem."
An Epidemic
Dr. Joseph Liberto
Commenting on the study, Joseph Liberto, MD, Veterans Affairs Maryland Health Care System, Baltimore, said the researchers tackled "an important topic."
"Opioid analgesic abuse has reached epidemic proportions in the United States, and one important area that needs special emphasis is pain medication abuse in the elderly," he said.
Healthcare providers need to be prepared to see a growing number of older opioid analgesic abusers, especially as a large number of baby boomers with generally higher rates of illicit substance use age.
Dr. Liberto also pointed out that the elderly often pose significant diagnostic challenges to clinicians, because criteria that are appropriate for younger populations not always apply, and the signs and symptoms of addiction in some cases may be misinterpreted as products of normal aging.
In addition, polypharmacy, medical comorbidity, and the physiologic changes that accompany aging often complicate the treatment landscape.
"Dr. Trevisan and colleagues have done a good job highlighting the epidemiologic trends that support prescription pain medication abuse in the elderly as a growing problem," Dr. Liberto said.
"In addition, they have outlined some of the most relevant diagnostic considerations and treatment principles for identifying and treating elderly patients. As the authors conclude, further research aimed at improving diagnosis and treatment options in the older population is needed."
Dr. Trevisan and Dr. Liberto have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry (AAAP) 23rd Annual Meeting & Symposium. Abstract 25. Presented December 8, 2012.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Missing Data Lead FDA Panel to Vote Against Rivaroxaban for ACS May 23, 2012 (Updated May 24, 2012) (Silver Spring, Maryland) — The missing data issues plaguing the ATLAS ACS 2 TIMI 51 trial of the factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Bayer Healthcare/Janssen Pharmaceuticals) have prevented the drug from earning the endorsement of the FDA Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee. At its May 23 meeting, the panel voted six to four (with one abstention) against recommending that the FDA approve rivaroxaban for reducing the risk of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome or unstable angina in combination with aspirin, aspirin plus clopidogrel, or ticlopidine. Janssen's application is based on the results of the ATLAS ACS 2 phase 3 and the ATLAS ACS TIMI 46 phase 2 trial. The placebo-controlled ATLAS ACS 2 showed rivaroxaban reduced the risk of both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality while increasing the risk of bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage, but the studies were hindered by early patient withdrawals and missing data. We Don't Know What We're Missing Based on the ATLAS ACS 2 results, FDA reviewer Dr Karen Hicks recommended approval of rivaroxaban for the requested indications except all-cause mortality. However, another FDA reviewer, Dr Thomas Marciniak, was adamant that the trial results are not interpretable because about 12% of the patients had incomplete follow-up, far higher than the 1% to 1.5% differences in the end-point rates between rivaroxaban and placebo. A total of 1294 subjects discontinued the trial prematurely, and the company was only able to contact 183, of which 177 were confirmed to be alive. Because of the patient dropouts, the company adopted a "modified intention-to-treat analysis," whereby patients were observed for 30 days after randomization or the global end date for the trial, instead of observing all the patients until the end of the trial as the FDA originally suggested. Marciniak criticized the sponsor's efforts to follow the patients and said that three patient deaths not counted in the modified intention-to-treat analysis may just be the "tip of the iceberg." Because the percentage of patients whose ultimate vital status remains unknown is much greater than the reported differences in mortality rates, the claimed mortality benefits are not reliable. The majority of the panel sided with Marciniak. For example, Dr Sanjay Kaul (University of California, Los Angeles) voted "no" because "there was enough uncertainty in the quality and robustness of the data that dissuaded me from voting yes. . . . The 'missingness' of the data doesn't invalidate it, but it certainly makes it hard to infer [the conclusion]." Dr Steven Nissen (Cleveland Clinic, OH) said that the decision to use the modified intention-to-treat analysis had a "profound impact" on the interpretability of the data. "It's saying we don't care what happens after 30 days, [and] that colored the trial in ways we couldn't recover from." Given the risk of major bleeding, "I want to see better evidence that this strategy of adding an Xa inhibitor or a direct thrombin inhibitor or something else to a good antiplatelet agent is robustly better for the patient," Nissen said. He recommends that the companies run a new trial of the 2.5 twice-daily dose of rivaroxaban using a strict intention-to-treat approach, but, he said, "I don't expect the death benefit to be too robust." Several panelists said they were concerned that the patients who dropped out of the trial were disproportionately likely to have a bleeding event, which led them to quit the trial, or a "protopathic" event, as statistician Dr Scott Emerson (University of Washington, Seattle) put it. "We're worried that an impending event is what is changing their behavior. We see that all the time in clinical trials--that regularly measured end points do not pick up [all of] the events," he said. He said that since the company was only able to contact 183 of the over 1200 patients who dropped out, it is possible that the dropouts skew the outcomes comparison of the trial. "Differential event rates after dropout are the number-one thing we're afraid of, so you have to explore it" in a statistical sensitivity analysis of the potential impact of these unknown outcomes. "It would not surprise me if, at the end of the day, these data did not hold up under a proper sensitivity analysis," he said. "What I want to know is, among the people who had events, how differential was the follow-up, but I can tell you by just looking at it, there was a very slightly different amount of follow-up of the people in the treatment arm. But I don't know whether everyone in the treatment arm was cured and they were trekking in the Himalayas and everyone in the placebo arm went home to die. I don't know that that's not the case." Dr Maury Krantz (University of Colorado, Denver) voted in favor of approval but said he does not know how rivaroxaban would perform in general clinical practice, especially when used with aspirin and clopidogrel. "I felt very much torn by this. This isn't a simple paradigm shift. It means going to triple therapy, which is really a three-headed monster in many ways. I think that what you're going to see in practice, if this is not done carefully with the proper labeling and secondary studies, is really dramatic magnification of bleeding and perhaps minimization of the efficacy benefit."

May 23, 2012   (Updated May 24, 2012)  (Silver Spring, Maryland)  —  The missing data issues plaguing the  ATLAS ACS 2 TIMI 51   trial of the factor Xa inhibitor  rivaroxaban  (Xarelto, Bayer Healthcare/Janssen Pharmaceuticals) have prevented the drug from earning the endorsement of the  FDA  Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee. At its May 23 meeting , the panel voted six to four (with one abstention) against recommending that the FDA approve rivaroxaban for reducing the risk of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome or unstable angina in combination with aspirin, aspirin plus  clopidogrel , or  ticlopidine . Janssen's application is based on the results of the ATLAS ACS 2 phase 3 and the  ATLAS ACS TIMI 46   phase 2 trial. The placebo-controlled ATLAS ACS 2 showed rivaroxaban reduced the risk of both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality while increasing the ri...
Post a Comment
Read more

Antidepressants Linked to Higher Diabetes Risk in Kids

Pediatric patients who use antidepressants may have an elevated risk for type 2 diabetes, the authors of a new study report. In a retrospective cohort study of more than 119,000 youths 5 to 20 years of age, the risk for incident type 2 diabetes was nearly twice as high among current users of certain types of antidepressants as among former users, Mehmet Burcu, PhD, and colleagues report in an article  published online October 16 in  JAMA Pediatrics . The risk intensified with increasing duration of use, greater cumulative doses, and higher daily doses of these antidepressants. The findings point to a growing need for closer monitoring of these products, including greater balancing of risks and benefits, in the pediatric population, the authors caution. They undertook the study because, despite growing evidence of an association between antidepressant use and an increased risk for type 2 diabetes in adults, similar research in pediatric patients was scarce. "To our know...
Post a Comment
Read more

Contact Precautions May Have Unintended Consequences

Contact precautions, including gloves, gowns, and isolated rooms, have helped stem the transmission of hospital pathogens but have also had some negative consequences, according to findings from a new study. Healthcare worker (HCWs) visited patients on contact precautions less frequently than other patients and spent less time with those patients when they did visit, report Daniel J. Morgan, MD, from the University of Maryland School of Medicine and the Veterans Affairs (VA) Maryland Health Care System, Baltimore, and colleagues. Moreover, patients on contact precautions also received fewer outside visitors. "Less contact with HCWs suggests that other unintended consequences of contact precautions still exist," Dr. Morgan and coauthors write. "The resulting decrease in HCW contact may lead to increased adverse events and a lower quality of patient care due to less consistent patient monitoring and poorer adherence to standard adverse event prevention methods (such...
Post a Comment
Read more